http://www.physorg.com/news107094472.html
The Ancient Greek Army preferred gay soldiers and would put lovers into combat side by side, knowing they would fight all the fiercer to protect their lovers.
So, what is the straight, macho male objection to gays, anyways? If they stop and really think about it: a) gays don"t generally go for totally straight guys; and, b) think how many women a straight guy will go to bed with in his lifetime; now, multiply that by the number of gay men and you have the figure of how many more women are available to straight guys because of the gays. Guys, if there weren"t so many gay guys, there would be a correspondingly lower number of women for you. So, quit your bitchin" and go out and find these hot babes that gays guys could care less about.
Two or more? Sounds like this is equally a valid argument for legalizing polygamy as well.
This man has discovered clan-ism. Wow What are the odds of Europeans clanning together by family or invited relativism. This is not news this is one source or European royalty and clans. It was common for brothers or members of a clan to enter into binding agreements once a father head died. But...not that common. Because of infighting and murderous plots all but the richest of families soon moved into the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries where Nuclear families dominated.
I also wouldn't go touting the whole Greek army thing. It's not that they preferred Gays over straights its that this was the perfect persecution of gays. They would use these gay soldiers up until they died or they would have to watch their lovers die at the hand of the enemy. Doesn't sound like a position of pride to me more like creating rabid dogs.
I also wouldn't go touting the whole Greek army thing. It's not that they preferred Gays over straights its that this was the perfect persecution of gays. They would use these gay soldiers up until they died or they would have to watch their lovers die at the hand of the enemy. Doesn't sound like a position of pride to me more like creating rabid dogs.
Although this supports the idea of a legal union, which protects the legal rights of a "couple", it doesn't have any bearing on the idea of gay marriage. Marriage has always been a union of a man and a woman. In my opinion, governments should get out of the business of marriages, leaving it to the religious institutions, and deal only with the legal and contractual side of things. This would keep both camps happy.
Much of that has been noted before by early medieval historians such as John Boswell, James Brundage, and Mark Jordan. For much of early Christian history, such unions were tolerated and occasionally encouraged, and such behavior was the norm until church scholars such as Peter Damien worked to counter it.
The universe has laws and order. Man has the ability to act in consort with the law and order that govern the universe. Man also has the ability to act against the natural order of the universe. Actions that support the order of the universe produce positive results and those that act against natural have negative results.
The society is not isolated from the actions of even one person and as such, society as a whole is called upon to support actions that are in agreement with natural law.
By natures design sex is intended to produce children and marriage is an extension of that intent of nature to provide a stable environment.
Homosexual acts are a perversion of the intent of nature and their negative impact on society extends beyond the act of the individual. This is seen by the intended disruption of the basic building block of any society, the family. Because of the perverted nature of homosexuality, people who practice homosexuality are driven to justify what they know is wrong. People who act in consort with nature have no need of justification; they are at peace within themselves.
The ennobling action of a couple producing children in an act of love is at total odds with the homosexual perversion of that intent.
Religion is and must be in agreement with the design of nature. This puts religion at odds with homosexuality not just for supernatural reasons but also for reasons of nature.
The supernatural reasons come from the knowledge that the intent of sex in the design of God is for the creation of souls to share eternity with God. Actions that pervert the use of that intent are action against the intent of God. All actions that are against the intent of God are by definition evil and a sin.
The perversion of the intent of God is not just with homosexuality; it applies to any actions that denies the intent of God.
Anyone that acts in support of the denial of life in any manner acts against God. Homosexuality must be recognized for what it is and never given respectability in any form or manner. If this is not done there will be great division in this country with a result as bad or worse then the civil war. Men of morals will never accept homosexuality as normal and those that support homosexuality will try to pervert the laws of this country to force acceptance. Freedom of religion requires that the religious views be held above all other laws. The denial of acceptance of homosexuality on religious grounds must be protected. As I am required to live my religious belief I can not and will not aid a perverted life style in my business life or personal life. In my business I will never provide benefits to homosexual partners or rent any of my properties to them. Any status of homosexuality is non existent.
The society is not isolated from the actions of even one person and as such, society as a whole is called upon to support actions that are in agreement with natural law.
By natures design sex is intended to produce children and marriage is an extension of that intent of nature to provide a stable environment.
Homosexual acts are a perversion of the intent of nature and their negative impact on society extends beyond the act of the individual. This is seen by the intended disruption of the basic building block of any society, the family. Because of the perverted nature of homosexuality, people who practice homosexuality are driven to justify what they know is wrong. People who act in consort with nature have no need of justification; they are at peace within themselves.
The ennobling action of a couple producing children in an act of love is at total odds with the homosexual perversion of that intent.
Religion is and must be in agreement with the design of nature. This puts religion at odds with homosexuality not just for supernatural reasons but also for reasons of nature.
The supernatural reasons come from the knowledge that the intent of sex in the design of God is for the creation of souls to share eternity with God. Actions that pervert the use of that intent are action against the intent of God. All actions that are against the intent of God are by definition evil and a sin.
The perversion of the intent of God is not just with homosexuality; it applies to any actions that denies the intent of God.
Anyone that acts in support of the denial of life in any manner acts against God. Homosexuality must be recognized for what it is and never given respectability in any form or manner. If this is not done there will be great division in this country with a result as bad or worse then the civil war. Men of morals will never accept homosexuality as normal and those that support homosexuality will try to pervert the laws of this country to force acceptance. Freedom of religion requires that the religious views be held above all other laws. The denial of acceptance of homosexuality on religious grounds must be protected. As I am required to live my religious belief I can not and will not aid a perverted life style in my business life or personal life. In my business I will never provide benefits to homosexual partners or rent any of my properties to them. Any status of homosexuality is non existent.
This is old news about the Greek army (and some say it still works today). Athletic competitions were held by naked men 2000 years ago and ancient pottery shows men fighting in battle naked.
The problem with gay men is that they do not stick to other gay men but try their luck among the straight population and think it is acceptable to touch them up in public, to spy on them urinating and even to proposition them. If gay men behaved as you claim then few would find fault with them.
The problem with gay men is that they do not stick to other gay men but try their luck among the straight population and think it is acceptable to touch them up in public, to spy on them urinating and even to proposition them. If gay men behaved as you claim then few would find fault with them.
Once again we hear the party line that its "unnatural". Really? Some animal species exhibit homosexual behavior in some circumstances. Of course to propagate the species you need a man and a women. So what? Women should strive to be more then baby making machines, and human sexuality is a phenomena as wound up with cultural circumstances as biological ones. If you don't like the idea of homosexuals, don't be one. And please, those who have been throwing the Bible in my face, isn't this the same Bible with the line: "slaves obey your masters"? ( It descent matter, I'm a New Testament guy anyway) This arrangement seemed to have worked for the Greeks for centuries.
Anyone who says homosexuality is unnatural has no real knowledge of the natural world. Homosexuality is found many species. Most sexually reproducing species are hermaphrodites, which means there is only homosexuality in those species. Many species are born as females and may later become males and vice versa. Some species are all female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but they still rely on "lesbian" couplings to stimulate reproduction. And on and on....
The point is, homosexuality is very natural. The "unnatural" argument is false and is just a front for bigotry.
The same can be said of the behavior of heterosexual men towards women. I see no difference between the man who makes unwanted advances towards a woman or a man. There are perverts of the homosexual and heterosexual varieties. If this happens to you allot, then you are probably hanging out in the wrong places.
It may not be something for me, but I can not find any objective reasons that homosexuality is "wrong". If the only argument against it is your "feelings" about it, or some religious "reasoning" then you don't really have much of a right to control someone else's life. Why don't you stop being a fascist and let others live their lives the way they want to. Don't you think that any God that might be out there can handle the situation without your intervention? Hate is a worse sin and has far more prohibitions against it in the Bible and other religious texts than homosexuality. Christians especially are called to love not only their neighbors, but also their enemies. Jesus died in submission to a corrupt world, he did not come with a sword to conquer, that was his example to his followers.
The point is, homosexuality is very natural. The "unnatural" argument is false and is just a front for bigotry.
QUOTE
The problem with gay men is that they do not stick to other gay men but try their luck among the straight population and think it is acceptable to touch them up in public, to spy on them urinating and even to proposition them. If gay men behaved as you claim then few would find fault with them.
The same can be said of the behavior of heterosexual men towards women. I see no difference between the man who makes unwanted advances towards a woman or a man. There are perverts of the homosexual and heterosexual varieties. If this happens to you allot, then you are probably hanging out in the wrong places.
It may not be something for me, but I can not find any objective reasons that homosexuality is "wrong". If the only argument against it is your "feelings" about it, or some religious "reasoning" then you don't really have much of a right to control someone else's life. Why don't you stop being a fascist and let others live their lives the way they want to. Don't you think that any God that might be out there can handle the situation without your intervention? Hate is a worse sin and has far more prohibitions against it in the Bible and other religious texts than homosexuality. Christians especially are called to love not only their neighbors, but also their enemies. Jesus died in submission to a corrupt world, he did not come with a sword to conquer, that was his example to his followers.
QUOTE (Guest_Tim+Aug 24 2007, 02:18 AM)
Although this supports the idea of a legal union, which protects the legal rights of a "couple", it doesn't have any bearing on the idea of gay marriage. Marriage has always been a union of a man and a woman. In my opinion, governments should get out of the business of marriages, leaving it to the religious institutions, and deal only with the legal and contractual side of things.
First of all, how do gay Greek soldiers in antiquity support the idea of legal unions??
More importantly, if you insist that marriage is a religious institution, then what do you suggest we atheists do? Are atheists to be forbidden from getting married? And yeah, as an atheist I wouldn't go to any temple or resort to the services of any priest (of whatever cult); I'd get wed by a state-authorized official, and yes I'd have a civil marriage (ever heard of such a thing?)
So then the question is: if I can have a civil heterosexual marriage, why can't a gay couple get a civil homosexual marriage? Face it: religion doesn't even enter into it!!
Homosexual acts are a perversion of the intent of nature...
Homosexuality is not the same thing as homosexual acts. Heterosexual boys have crushes on girls; homosexual boys have crushes on boys. It's that simple. Sexual orientation is quite distinct from sexual acts, and it's perfectly possible to be a celibate homosexual (indeed, a large proportion of priests and monks are exactly that.)
And as for nature, it is full of homosexuality among all kinds of species. And by the way, nature is also full of fratricide and patricide, as well as generally full of all sorts of robbery, rape, and murder. Are those also part of the "intent of nature", and must they therefore be implemented and enforced in human society, lest we "pervert" nature's true purpose?
Religion is and must be in agreement with the design of nature.
Says who?? Religions are all pretty insane in their own various ways to begin with, and if somebody wants to have a particularly crazy religion that deliberately contradicts everything and anything natural, then it's their right!!
And oh by the way there isn't any "design" in nature, either. I know some deluded (or manipulative, or both) guy who claims to know unknowable things, or some words printed on paper reproducing the sayings of a similar but long-dead guy (or probably both of the above) told you otherwise, but guess what: that's now how truth about the universe is determined.
Says who?? Religions are all pretty insane in their own various ways to begin with, and if somebody wants to have a particularly crazy religion that deliberately contradicts everything and anything natural, then it's their right!!
And oh by the way there isn't any "design" in nature, either. I know some deluded (or manipulative, or both) guy who claims to know unknowable things, or some words printed on paper reproducing the sayings of a similar but long-dead guy (or probably both of the above) told you otherwise, but guess what: that's now how truth about the universe is determined.
Homosexuality must be recognized for what it is and never given respectability in any form or manner.
If that's accepted according to your religion, then you're free to apply such mandates to any other person who wishes to espouse the same, exact religion. However, you have NO RIGHT to impose your particular religion on EVERYONE ELSE.
As I am required to live my religious belief I can not and will not aid a perverted life style in my business life or personal life.
When it comes to your personal life, you are free to do whatever you wish. However, when it comes to your interactions with other human beings, you are NOT free. What if your religion required you to perform human sacrifice on your neighbor's children: should you be allowed to run amok just because that's your "religious right"?? NO! Bottom line: when it comes to your interactions with other human beings (i.e. other than your personal life), you are free to do whatever you want UNLESS YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS.
Thus, you are not any more at liberty to deny employment based on sexual orientation, than you are to deny employment based on race, sex, age, nationality, or any other kind of DISCRIMINATORY criterion.
Anyone who says homosexuality is unnatural has no real knowledge of the natural world. Homosexuality is found many species.
I agree with the above observations. Homosexuality is animal behavior. This is one of the major problems, homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals. We recognize that man is far above the animals and the rights of man do not extend to animals. The rights of man come from God and not from any man or group of men. This country was founded on this principle. People that behave like animals are shun from our society.
Animals do not have the capacity to understand the value of life and their actions indicate this. Man is able to understand the deeper value of life itself and especially human life. Any thinking person realizes that respect for each other is basic in the value of life and the value of life extends to the entire process of life.
Without the respect for life, there is no civilization and no action is wrong. If life and the process of life have no special value then there is no basis for law. All actions including murder is allowed. Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes must not become part of out society. A society without a firm moral base can not stand.
Morality is not just opinion it is basic in all things and it is truth for all.
Homosexuality is animal behavior.
One more time for the particularly dense: homosexuality is not any kind of behavior. Heterosexuality isn't a behavior either. It's a sexual orientation; it's a personality trait, like intelligence, shyness, or athletic aptitude for example.
This is one of the major problems, homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals.
They aren't "trying" anything. They're just asking not to be harassed (and worse) by the likes of you, but to be treated with dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people equally under the law.
They aren't "trying" anything. They're just asking not to be harassed (and worse) by the likes of you, but to be treated with dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people equally under the law.
Any thinking person realizes that respect for each other is basic in the value of life and the value of life extends to the entire process of life.
That must mean YOU are not a thinking person, since you obviously have no respect for homosexuals, nor value their lives.
Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes must not become part of out society.
Homosexuality is not a crime, because it is not an act. And homosexual acts aren't crimes, because there are no victims. And sexual orientation is not a matter of morality; it is a personality trait.
Homosexuality is not a crime, because it is not an act. And homosexual acts aren't crimes, because there are no victims. And sexual orientation is not a matter of morality; it is a personality trait.
Morality is not just opinion it is basic in all things and it is truth for all.
Not as you define it. If you insist on deriving morality from religion, then it is indeed a matter of opinion -- because different religions will have different "moral" opinions, and choice of religion is in itself an exercise in opinion.
On the other hand, there are indeed certain universal rules of morality, and they do not derive from any deity. They are simply common-sense principles derived reliably and independently by every single society on earth, and firmly rooted in the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.) This is established quite simply: societies that honor the Golden Rule tend to thrive, while societies that don't follow this rule tend to disintegrate spectacularly.
Humans are also equipped with an emotional apparatus that rewards cooperation and friendship, while punishing isolation and unprovoked aggression. Humans don't need to be taught how to love and empathize; we are born with those abilities hard-wired into our brains (with the exception of congenital sociopaths, of course...) This emotional apparatus is the fundamental basis for the family and tribal structures, as well as common family and tribal laws that every single society on earth arrives at regardless of its culture or religion.
First of all, how do gay Greek soldiers in antiquity support the idea of legal unions??
More importantly, if you insist that marriage is a religious institution, then what do you suggest we atheists do? Are atheists to be forbidden from getting married? And yeah, as an atheist I wouldn't go to any temple or resort to the services of any priest (of whatever cult); I'd get wed by a state-authorized official, and yes I'd have a civil marriage (ever heard of such a thing?)
So then the question is: if I can have a civil heterosexual marriage, why can't a gay couple get a civil homosexual marriage? Face it: religion doesn't even enter into it!!
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 24 2007, 7:09 AM)
Homosexual acts are a perversion of the intent of nature...
Homosexuality is not the same thing as homosexual acts. Heterosexual boys have crushes on girls; homosexual boys have crushes on boys. It's that simple. Sexual orientation is quite distinct from sexual acts, and it's perfectly possible to be a celibate homosexual (indeed, a large proportion of priests and monks are exactly that.)
And as for nature, it is full of homosexuality among all kinds of species. And by the way, nature is also full of fratricide and patricide, as well as generally full of all sorts of robbery, rape, and murder. Are those also part of the "intent of nature", and must they therefore be implemented and enforced in human society, lest we "pervert" nature's true purpose?
QUOTE
Religion is and must be in agreement with the design of nature.
Says who?? Religions are all pretty insane in their own various ways to begin with, and if somebody wants to have a particularly crazy religion that deliberately contradicts everything and anything natural, then it's their right!!
And oh by the way there isn't any "design" in nature, either. I know some deluded (or manipulative, or both) guy who claims to know unknowable things, or some words printed on paper reproducing the sayings of a similar but long-dead guy (or probably both of the above) told you otherwise, but guess what: that's now how truth about the universe is determined.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Religion is and must be in agreement with the design of nature. |
Says who?? Religions are all pretty insane in their own various ways to begin with, and if somebody wants to have a particularly crazy religion that deliberately contradicts everything and anything natural, then it's their right!!
And oh by the way there isn't any "design" in nature, either. I know some deluded (or manipulative, or both) guy who claims to know unknowable things, or some words printed on paper reproducing the sayings of a similar but long-dead guy (or probably both of the above) told you otherwise, but guess what: that's now how truth about the universe is determined.
Homosexuality must be recognized for what it is and never given respectability in any form or manner.
If that's accepted according to your religion, then you're free to apply such mandates to any other person who wishes to espouse the same, exact religion. However, you have NO RIGHT to impose your particular religion on EVERYONE ELSE.
QUOTE
As I am required to live my religious belief I can not and will not aid a perverted life style in my business life or personal life.
When it comes to your personal life, you are free to do whatever you wish. However, when it comes to your interactions with other human beings, you are NOT free. What if your religion required you to perform human sacrifice on your neighbor's children: should you be allowed to run amok just because that's your "religious right"?? NO! Bottom line: when it comes to your interactions with other human beings (i.e. other than your personal life), you are free to do whatever you want UNLESS YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS.
Thus, you are not any more at liberty to deny employment based on sexual orientation, than you are to deny employment based on race, sex, age, nationality, or any other kind of DISCRIMINATORY criterion.
QUOTE
Once again we hear the party line that its "unnatural". Really? Some animal species exhibit homosexual behavior in some circumstances.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again we hear the party line that its "unnatural". Really? Some animal species exhibit homosexual behavior in some circumstances. |
Anyone who says homosexuality is unnatural has no real knowledge of the natural world. Homosexuality is found many species.
QUOTE
And as for nature, it is full of homosexuality among all kinds of species.
I agree with the above observations. Homosexuality is animal behavior. This is one of the major problems, homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals. We recognize that man is far above the animals and the rights of man do not extend to animals. The rights of man come from God and not from any man or group of men. This country was founded on this principle. People that behave like animals are shun from our society.
Animals do not have the capacity to understand the value of life and their actions indicate this. Man is able to understand the deeper value of life itself and especially human life. Any thinking person realizes that respect for each other is basic in the value of life and the value of life extends to the entire process of life.
Without the respect for life, there is no civilization and no action is wrong. If life and the process of life have no special value then there is no basis for law. All actions including murder is allowed. Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes must not become part of out society. A society without a firm moral base can not stand.
Morality is not just opinion it is basic in all things and it is truth for all.
Just the sort of self righteous pap to be expected by tlocity. Who looks like he has a few closet sexuality issues to sort out
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 25 2007, 01:56 AM)
Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes must not become part of out society. A society without a firm moral base can not stand.
Just for you tlocity:
Just for you tlocity:
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 25 2007, 01:56 AM)
Homosexuality is animal behavior.
One more time for the particularly dense: homosexuality is not any kind of behavior. Heterosexuality isn't a behavior either. It's a sexual orientation; it's a personality trait, like intelligence, shyness, or athletic aptitude for example.
QUOTE
This is one of the major problems, homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals.
They aren't "trying" anything. They're just asking not to be harassed (and worse) by the likes of you, but to be treated with dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people equally under the law.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
This is one of the major problems, homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals. |
They aren't "trying" anything. They're just asking not to be harassed (and worse) by the likes of you, but to be treated with dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people equally under the law.
Any thinking person realizes that respect for each other is basic in the value of life and the value of life extends to the entire process of life.
That must mean YOU are not a thinking person, since you obviously have no respect for homosexuals, nor value their lives.
QUOTE
Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes must not become part of out society.
Homosexuality is not a crime, because it is not an act. And homosexual acts aren't crimes, because there are no victims. And sexual orientation is not a matter of morality; it is a personality trait.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes must not become part of out society. |
Homosexuality is not a crime, because it is not an act. And homosexual acts aren't crimes, because there are no victims. And sexual orientation is not a matter of morality; it is a personality trait.
Morality is not just opinion it is basic in all things and it is truth for all.
Not as you define it. If you insist on deriving morality from religion, then it is indeed a matter of opinion -- because different religions will have different "moral" opinions, and choice of religion is in itself an exercise in opinion.
On the other hand, there are indeed certain universal rules of morality, and they do not derive from any deity. They are simply common-sense principles derived reliably and independently by every single society on earth, and firmly rooted in the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.) This is established quite simply: societies that honor the Golden Rule tend to thrive, while societies that don't follow this rule tend to disintegrate spectacularly.
Humans are also equipped with an emotional apparatus that rewards cooperation and friendship, while punishing isolation and unprovoked aggression. Humans don't need to be taught how to love and empathize; we are born with those abilities hard-wired into our brains (with the exception of congenital sociopaths, of course...) This emotional apparatus is the fundamental basis for the family and tribal structures, as well as common family and tribal laws that every single society on earth arrives at regardless of its culture or religion.
Pink Elephant
Marriage is an establishment of religion and the constitution prohibits any laws against any establishment of religion. The government may recognize any establishment of religion but it can not determine the tenets of religious belief. This is the required separation of church and state. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition. For the government to perform a marriage is the government performing a religious right. As an atheist, you can not be married. Face it the government is entering religion. All the government can do is give you permission to shack up.
Marriage is an establishment of religion and the constitution prohibits any laws against any establishment of religion. The government may recognize any establishment of religion but it can not determine the tenets of religious belief. This is the required separation of church and state. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition. For the government to perform a marriage is the government performing a religious right. As an atheist, you can not be married. Face it the government is entering religion. All the government can do is give you permission to shack up.
When it comes to your personal life, you are free to do whatever you wish. However, when it comes to your interactions with other human beings, you are NOT free. What if your religion required you to perform human sacrifice on your neighbor's children: should you be allowed to run amok just because that's your "religious right"?? NO! Bottom line: when it comes to your interactions with other human beings (i.e. other than your personal life), you are free to do whatever you want UNLESS YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS.
Thus, you are not any more at liberty to deny employment based on sexual orientation, than you are to deny employment based on race, sex, age, nationality, or any other kind of DISCRIMINATORY criterion.
The government can not require a person to aid immorality. Sexual orientation is not an issue. I have no right to deny you your belief just as you have no right to require me to act against mine. Providing support for the immoral act of homosexual sex is against my religion.
Just as no religious hospital can be required to provide abortion, I can not be required to provide health care for abortion or homosexual partners. Your very view that this should be required is one of the evils of homosexuality. Yours is a view against basic civil liberties. Civil liberties are not requirements of discrimination between people but civil liberties are the requirement of limiting government power. If you have not noticed the noble idea of eliminating discrimination between people has resulted in more power and control of all of our lives by the government. Now you wish to use that power to deny religious freedom. It is time to put a stop to this stupidity. It is sad that a group of people with a basic dysfunction will be one of the battlegrounds.
For the homosexual I have nothing but sadness and compassion for their personal torment. This compassion can not and does not extend to allowing the society to be perverted from the intent of our Founding Fathers. It is a never-ending fight to preserve our country. The first requirement in the defense of this country is to recognize evil for what it is. liberty is never the results of tricks, twisted logic and redefinition of words. Whenever you see this, you know liberty is under attack.
QUOTE
More importantly, if you insist that marriage is a religious institution, then what do you suggest we atheists do? Are atheists to be forbidden from getting married? And yeah, as an atheist I wouldn't go to any temple or resort to the services of any priest (of whatever cult); I'd get wed by a state-authorized official, and yes I'd have a civil marriage (ever heard of such a thing?)
So then the question is: if I can have a civil heterosexual marriage, why can't a gay couple get a civil homosexual marriage? Face it: religion doesn't even enter into it!!
So then the question is: if I can have a civil heterosexual marriage, why can't a gay couple get a civil homosexual marriage? Face it: religion doesn't even enter into it!!
Marriage is an establishment of religion and the constitution prohibits any laws against any establishment of religion. The government may recognize any establishment of religion but it can not determine the tenets of religious belief. This is the required separation of church and state. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition. For the government to perform a marriage is the government performing a religious right. As an atheist, you can not be married. Face it the government is entering religion. All the government can do is give you permission to shack up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| More importantly, if you insist that marriage is a religious institution, then what do you suggest we atheists do? Are atheists to be forbidden from getting married? And yeah, as an atheist I wouldn't go to any temple or resort to the services of any priest (of whatever cult); I'd get wed by a state-authorized official, and yes I'd have a civil marriage (ever heard of such a thing?) So then the question is: if I can have a civil heterosexual marriage, why can't a gay couple get a civil homosexual marriage? Face it: religion doesn't even enter into it!! |
Marriage is an establishment of religion and the constitution prohibits any laws against any establishment of religion. The government may recognize any establishment of religion but it can not determine the tenets of religious belief. This is the required separation of church and state. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition. For the government to perform a marriage is the government performing a religious right. As an atheist, you can not be married. Face it the government is entering religion. All the government can do is give you permission to shack up.
When it comes to your personal life, you are free to do whatever you wish. However, when it comes to your interactions with other human beings, you are NOT free. What if your religion required you to perform human sacrifice on your neighbor's children: should you be allowed to run amok just because that's your "religious right"?? NO! Bottom line: when it comes to your interactions with other human beings (i.e. other than your personal life), you are free to do whatever you want UNLESS YOUR ACTIONS CAUSE HARM TO OTHERS.
Thus, you are not any more at liberty to deny employment based on sexual orientation, than you are to deny employment based on race, sex, age, nationality, or any other kind of DISCRIMINATORY criterion.
The government can not require a person to aid immorality. Sexual orientation is not an issue. I have no right to deny you your belief just as you have no right to require me to act against mine. Providing support for the immoral act of homosexual sex is against my religion.
Just as no religious hospital can be required to provide abortion, I can not be required to provide health care for abortion or homosexual partners. Your very view that this should be required is one of the evils of homosexuality. Yours is a view against basic civil liberties. Civil liberties are not requirements of discrimination between people but civil liberties are the requirement of limiting government power. If you have not noticed the noble idea of eliminating discrimination between people has resulted in more power and control of all of our lives by the government. Now you wish to use that power to deny religious freedom. It is time to put a stop to this stupidity. It is sad that a group of people with a basic dysfunction will be one of the battlegrounds.
For the homosexual I have nothing but sadness and compassion for their personal torment. This compassion can not and does not extend to allowing the society to be perverted from the intent of our Founding Fathers. It is a never-ending fight to preserve our country. The first requirement in the defense of this country is to recognize evil for what it is. liberty is never the results of tricks, twisted logic and redefinition of words. Whenever you see this, you know liberty is under attack.
Pink Elephant
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. Word games do not change the evil of homosexuality. Personality traits are a choice. Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed. Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
The homosexual condition on a personal basis is to be considered with compassion just as any other disability that causes suffering. The evil of homosexuality is when it tries to define society.
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. Word games do not change the evil of homosexuality. Personality traits are a choice. Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed. Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
The homosexual condition on a personal basis is to be considered with compassion just as any other disability that causes suffering. The evil of homosexuality is when it tries to define society.
They aren't "trying" anything. They're just asking not to be harassed (and worse) by the likes of you, but to be treated with dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people equally under the law.
There is no dignity in man acting like animals. The homosexuals are denying the dignity of the life process. They are attacking the establishment and dignity of marriage. They are trying to force an acceptance of a lifestyle that is a basic perversion of the intent of God. They have no regard for the good of society as a whole.
QUOTE
One more time for the particularly dense: homosexuality is not any kind of behavior. Heterosexuality isn't a behavior either. It's a sexual orientation; it's a personality trait, like intelligence, shyness, or athletic aptitude for example.
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. Word games do not change the evil of homosexuality. Personality traits are a choice. Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed. Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
The homosexual condition on a personal basis is to be considered with compassion just as any other disability that causes suffering. The evil of homosexuality is when it tries to define society.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One more time for the particularly dense: homosexuality is not any kind of behavior. Heterosexuality isn't a behavior either. It's a sexual orientation; it's a personality trait, like intelligence, shyness, or athletic aptitude for example. |
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. Word games do not change the evil of homosexuality. Personality traits are a choice. Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed. Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
The homosexual condition on a personal basis is to be considered with compassion just as any other disability that causes suffering. The evil of homosexuality is when it tries to define society.
They aren't "trying" anything. They're just asking not to be harassed (and worse) by the likes of you, but to be treated with dignity and respect that should be accorded to all people equally under the law.
There is no dignity in man acting like animals. The homosexuals are denying the dignity of the life process. They are attacking the establishment and dignity of marriage. They are trying to force an acceptance of a lifestyle that is a basic perversion of the intent of God. They have no regard for the good of society as a whole.
QUOTE
That must mean YOU are not a thinking person, since you obviously have no respect for homosexuals, nor value their lives.
I have every respect for homosexuals. In fact, I have more respect for them then they have for themselves. I also have even greater concern for their total life, physical and spiritual. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That must mean YOU are not a thinking person, since you obviously have no respect for homosexuals, nor value their lives. |
I have every respect for homosexuals. In fact, I have more respect for them then they have for themselves. I also have even greater concern for their total life, physical and spiritual.
Homosexuality is not a crime, because it is not an act. And homosexual acts aren't crimes, because there are no victims. And sexual orientation is not a matter of morality; it is a personality trait.
Homosexuality is not a crime it is a disorder. There are many victims when people act out their disorder. There will be much suffering as this battle grows.
It is clear that you have no understanding or education in morals. All actions of choice are a subject of morality. If these are people that have no ability to make choices they need care takers.
As you say there are universal rules of morality. The only thing you fail to see, or are not educated in, is the fact that the universal rules of morality apply in all cases.
You mix and pick between basic morals and your opinion.
The Golden is from religion just as is love God with you whole mind and heart.
Just because some religions are like you and have no understanding of basic morality does not prove the nonexistence of universal rules in all things.
At the source of universal rules is a respect for life. This applies to all stages and process of life. Homosexuality denies this basic value of the seed of life. If you have true respect for life how can you not value the seed of life. How can you live a life that denies the value of that seed and deny life that could be. The basic evil is in creating a life style that is designed to deny life. That intent of denying life is a grave evil.
Any action that is evil must either be repented or justified away. The homosexual life style requires an attempt of justification. Any attempt of justification will never be enough. The effort to get recognition in law and of marriage is that attempt at justification. The only peace is in repentance.
Homosexuality is not a crime, because it is not an act. And homosexual acts aren't crimes, because there are no victims. And sexual orientation is not a matter of morality; it is a personality trait.
Homosexuality is not a crime it is a disorder. There are many victims when people act out their disorder. There will be much suffering as this battle grows.
It is clear that you have no understanding or education in morals. All actions of choice are a subject of morality. If these are people that have no ability to make choices they need care takers.
QUOTE
Not as you define it. If you insist on deriving morality from religion, then it is indeed a matter of opinion -- because different religions will have different "moral" opinions, and choice of religion is in itself an exercise in opinion.
On the other hand, there are indeed certain universal rules of morality, and they do not derive from any deity. They are simply common-sense principles derived reliably and independently by every single society on earth, and firmly rooted in the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.) This is established quite simply: societies that honor the Golden Rule tend to thrive, while societies that don't follow this rule tend to disintegrate spectacularly.
Humans are also equipped with an emotional apparatus that rewards cooperation and friendship, while punishing isolation and unprovoked aggression. Humans don't need to be taught how to love and empathize; we are born with those abilities hard-wired into our brains (with the exception of congenital sociopaths, of course...) This emotional apparatus is the fundamental basis for the family and tribal structures, as well as common family and tribal laws that every single society on earth arrives at regardless of its culture or religion.
On the other hand, there are indeed certain universal rules of morality, and they do not derive from any deity. They are simply common-sense principles derived reliably and independently by every single society on earth, and firmly rooted in the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.) This is established quite simply: societies that honor the Golden Rule tend to thrive, while societies that don't follow this rule tend to disintegrate spectacularly.
Humans are also equipped with an emotional apparatus that rewards cooperation and friendship, while punishing isolation and unprovoked aggression. Humans don't need to be taught how to love and empathize; we are born with those abilities hard-wired into our brains (with the exception of congenital sociopaths, of course...) This emotional apparatus is the fundamental basis for the family and tribal structures, as well as common family and tribal laws that every single society on earth arrives at regardless of its culture or religion.
As you say there are universal rules of morality. The only thing you fail to see, or are not educated in, is the fact that the universal rules of morality apply in all cases.
You mix and pick between basic morals and your opinion.
The Golden is from religion just as is love God with you whole mind and heart.
Just because some religions are like you and have no understanding of basic morality does not prove the nonexistence of universal rules in all things.
At the source of universal rules is a respect for life. This applies to all stages and process of life. Homosexuality denies this basic value of the seed of life. If you have true respect for life how can you not value the seed of life. How can you live a life that denies the value of that seed and deny life that could be. The basic evil is in creating a life style that is designed to deny life. That intent of denying life is a grave evil.
Any action that is evil must either be repented or justified away. The homosexual life style requires an attempt of justification. Any attempt of justification will never be enough. The effort to get recognition in law and of marriage is that attempt at justification. The only peace is in repentance.
If animals indulge in same sex relationships, is that a reason why humans should do the same? Like many animals, should humans also have sex between brothers and sisters and with no minimum age? You are doing homosexuals no favours by comparing their behaviour to animals behaviour.
Shouldn't worry Diamond Jim this guy reproduces by division ..... everything else is 'mucky'.
Let me see if I understand this. First, those who have strong objections against homosexual behavior always fall back on "animals don't do that". As far as human behavior is concerned regarding homosexuality or any thing else, its perfectly rational to compare one species to another. This is SOP in many behavior experiments. When the behavior is demonstrated to prove those who think being gay behavior is unique some humans, are shown to be flat out wrong, they flip it saying "we should not be compared to lowly animals. I know some of you feel the human race is some how "exalted", or what ever, over all other life. If so, we are doing a piss poor job of proving it. You want to take a close look at us? What animals hunt for sport only, ( some might I just don't know of any). Thanks to our large brain and opposable thumbs we, as a group, have no more regard for each other then the ants invading our pick nick. In the grand scheme of things, as long as your dealing with consenting adults I just don't care with who sleeps with whom.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 25 2007, 03:17 AM)
Personality traits are a choice. Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed. Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
Bovine Poo
Homosexuality is not a CHOICE.
You don't make a CHOICE as to whom you are attracted to.
You don't make a CHOICE as to how you percieve yourself as either masculine or feminine.
There is no UPSIDE to being a homosexual, so NO, people don't CHOOSE to be one, what they CHOOSE is to try to make the most out of the hand they were given.
That little bit of 'being normal' is what you would deny them.
For your OWN selfish reasons.
And no, your genetic makeup DOES NOT CHANGE with life experience.
Your IGNORANCE of biology, sexuality and genetics is just something you use to support your rabid homophobia.
Arthur
Bovine Poo
Homosexuality is not a CHOICE.
You don't make a CHOICE as to whom you are attracted to.
You don't make a CHOICE as to how you percieve yourself as either masculine or feminine.
There is no UPSIDE to being a homosexual, so NO, people don't CHOOSE to be one, what they CHOOSE is to try to make the most out of the hand they were given.
That little bit of 'being normal' is what you would deny them.
For your OWN selfish reasons.
And no, your genetic makeup DOES NOT CHANGE with life experience.
Your IGNORANCE of biology, sexuality and genetics is just something you use to support your rabid homophobia.
Arthur
A lesson in mutual exclusivity by tlocity:
Homosexuality is not a crime
**********************
Homosexuality must be recognized for what it is and never given respectability in any form or manner.
**********************
**********************
Personality traits are a CHOICE
**********************
**********************
the rights of man do not extend to animals.
Gen. 1:21
Gen. 1:22
Gen. 1:22 And God BLESSED them...
Gen.1:27
Gen. 1:28
Gen. 1:28 And God BLESSED them
Gen. 1:29
Do you eat the animals whom God has similarly BLESSED, for meat?
************************
Do you eat the animals whom God has similarly BLESSED, for meat?
************************
homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals.
Seeing Eye Dogs? The Rin Tin Tins across the country who will give their lives to protect their masters and especially their master's children?? The dolphins that present themselves to autistic/disabled children in obviously compassionate ways, with incredible results? Wild dolphins who have voluntarily protected victims at sea from sharks? All these animals, and countless more, have proven their ability to not only understand the value of life, but work to preserve LIVES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN. I am so galled by this that I'm tempted to start a thread on hero pet stories. There would be hundreds of testimonials.
**********************
You haven't handled your indoctrination into dogma well. Why not start thinking for yourself? You may yet find all the compassion that you think you have.
Marriage is an establishment of religion and the constitution prohibits any laws against any establishment of religion
You need to get out more; the world does not consist exclusively of Catholics.
Marriage is a set of contracts between (usually) two people of opposite sex. It obligates these people to live together, share their resources, care for each other, raise children in collaboration, and then (should they so choose) pass on their resources to their children upon death. None of this has anything to do with establishment of any kind of religion.
Atheistic societies like the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China had conducted (and in China's case, still conducting) hundreds of millions of civil marriages. They would be highly amused by the claim that they are somehow establishing any kind of religion in the process!!
In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition.
I know it may come as a shock to you, but not all of us are members of your church. Therefore, many of us (indeed, the majority of the world's population) are not constrained by any definitions of marriage that your church seeks to impose upon its own membership.
I know it may come as a shock to you, but not all of us are members of your church. Therefore, many of us (indeed, the majority of the world's population) are not constrained by any definitions of marriage that your church seeks to impose upon its own membership.
For the government to perform a marriage is the government performing a religious right.
No, government is prohibited from performing religious rites (even though it routinely flouts such prohibitions, for example by conducting prayer services in Congress at taxpayer expense...) When a civil marriage is performed, the government simply recognizes the set of contracts concluded between a couple. From that point on, those contracts are actionable and enforceable through law. Government establishes and enforces laws; that's one of its primary functions -- thus it is completely within its right to define, conduct, and administer civil (i.e. non-religious) marriage.
As an atheist, you can not be married.
Correction: as an atheist, I cannot be married in your church. But I wouldn't want to be married by any church or priest in the first place; that would make a travesty of the whole affair.
On the other hand, my parents would certainly be surprised by your declaration, as they are also both atheists and have been happily married for 35 years.
Correction: as an atheist, I cannot be married in your church. But I wouldn't want to be married by any church or priest in the first place; that would make a travesty of the whole affair.
On the other hand, my parents would certainly be surprised by your declaration, as they are also both atheists and have been happily married for 35 years.
The government can not require a person to aid immorality. ... Providing support for the immoral act of homosexual sex is against my religion.
Nobody is asking or forcing you to provide support for any act of sex, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual, vaginal, anal, oral, masturbatory, group, bestial, or paedophiliac. However, what you are being asked to do, is to BUTT OUT of people's PRIVATE lives. Quite simply, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. At least that's the case in free societies; for a meditation on the alternatives, refer to 1984 by George Orwell.
The only time the society (through its government) can justifiably assert control over sexual acts, is when those acts involve victimization. For example, acts of paedophilia victimize children, and can therefore be ligitimately (and rightly) outlawed by the state (and by the way, your particular church might wisht to take down some notes here...) By contrast, homosexual sex has no victims: it occurs between consenting adults.
Just as no religious hospital can be required to provide abortion, I can not be required to provide health care for abortion or homosexual partners.
That depends. If a religious hospital wants to receive taxpayer subsidies, then it cannot exercise discriminatory practices. If it's a private hospital that exclusively caters only to members of its own religion, then of course it is within its rights to do whatever it wishes to them (with their consent.)
As far as providing health care, you are not required to itemize what you pay for. You pay for a package of services; which of those services are utilized by the recipient is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS -- that very information is in fact legally protected by patient-doctor confidentiality. Now, you will protest that you are being forced to unknowingly pay for procedures to which you would object if you knew. However, that is always the case in any society that collects taxes. For example, I'd hope most religious Catholics would object to the notion of abducting from the street and sexually torturing Arabs in secret prisons; yet your tax dollars are funding precisely such activities (and many other things that you'd find highly objectionable if only you knew about them.)
Moreover, it is simply wrong-headed to think that you have any right or ability to control how an employee of yours spends their salary (or benefits, which are also part of the salary.) It is very simple: they do a job for you, and you pay them for doing the job. That's the extent of your professional relationship; you have NO RIGHT to stick your nose into the private lives of your employees. If you think you can protect yourself against funding abortion, you are delusional: even if the health plan for your employees does not pay for elective abortion, they could still use the regular paycheck YOU give them, to pay for just such a procedure. Thus in the end, it is still YOUR money that YOU gave them, which then becomes THEIR money, and is used to pay for what THEY choose as FREE consumers.
That depends. If a religious hospital wants to receive taxpayer subsidies, then it cannot exercise discriminatory practices. If it's a private hospital that exclusively caters only to members of its own religion, then of course it is within its rights to do whatever it wishes to them (with their consent.)
As far as providing health care, you are not required to itemize what you pay for. You pay for a package of services; which of those services are utilized by the recipient is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS -- that very information is in fact legally protected by patient-doctor confidentiality. Now, you will protest that you are being forced to unknowingly pay for procedures to which you would object if you knew. However, that is always the case in any society that collects taxes. For example, I'd hope most religious Catholics would object to the notion of abducting from the street and sexually torturing Arabs in secret prisons; yet your tax dollars are funding precisely such activities (and many other things that you'd find highly objectionable if only you knew about them.)
Moreover, it is simply wrong-headed to think that you have any right or ability to control how an employee of yours spends their salary (or benefits, which are also part of the salary.) It is very simple: they do a job for you, and you pay them for doing the job. That's the extent of your professional relationship; you have NO RIGHT to stick your nose into the private lives of your employees. If you think you can protect yourself against funding abortion, you are delusional: even if the health plan for your employees does not pay for elective abortion, they could still use the regular paycheck YOU give them, to pay for just such a procedure. Thus in the end, it is still YOUR money that YOU gave them, which then becomes THEIR money, and is used to pay for what THEY choose as FREE consumers.
Yours is a view against basic civil liberties. Civil liberties are not requirements of discrimination between people but civil liberties are the requirement of limiting government power.
In fact, civil liberties are neither. It is the government's job to establish a lawful, just, and peaceful environment for people to live in; this involves regulation of what people can/must vs. can't/mustn't do to other people, whether directly or indirectly. However, when it comes to private affairs of individuals, the government has no regulatory role. Ditto for various individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, association, petition, etc.
Crime prevention and law enforcement are therefore NOT mutually exclusive with assurance of civil liberties, because they concern distinctly separate spheres of activity.
If you have not noticed the noble idea of eliminating discrimination between people has resulted in more power and control of all of our lives by the government. Now you wish to use that power to deny religious freedom.
Whatever powers of control the government had gained due to the civil rights movement, are laughable compared to the hegemonic, Stalinist ambitions of the orthodox Catholic Church (and many other fundamentalist religions.) Religious freedom does not include the right to bend the rest of the world to your religious doctrine against its will. Your religious freedom applies only to what YOU do; it does not apply to what you want to do to OTHER PEOPLE. In the latter case, religious freedom means that it's the other people's right not to be harassed by you, that takes precedence over what you might want.
But if you want to complain about power and control, then maybe you should take a refresher course in American History. There was a time when a Black man couldn't marry a White woman; when a Black man couldn't own property; when a Black man's life was worthless. There was a time in America when anti-Communist hysteria brought about witch hunts and blacklists. There was a time, before World War II, when Fascism was ascendent and highly popular here. There was a time when huge monopolies and robber barons terrorized and repressed ordinary Americans, precisely because the government didn't have enough power to stop them. There was a time when the government tried to prohibit alcohol, and brought about the rise of organized crime mobs which reverberate to this day. There was a time when there used to be a draft, and you could be conscripted and forced to fight in a war against your will.
If you think things are bad now, you should take a look at the past and be thankful.
Whatever powers of control the government had gained due to the civil rights movement, are laughable compared to the hegemonic, Stalinist ambitions of the orthodox Catholic Church (and many other fundamentalist religions.) Religious freedom does not include the right to bend the rest of the world to your religious doctrine against its will. Your religious freedom applies only to what YOU do; it does not apply to what you want to do to OTHER PEOPLE. In the latter case, religious freedom means that it's the other people's right not to be harassed by you, that takes precedence over what you might want.
But if you want to complain about power and control, then maybe you should take a refresher course in American History. There was a time when a Black man couldn't marry a White woman; when a Black man couldn't own property; when a Black man's life was worthless. There was a time in America when anti-Communist hysteria brought about witch hunts and blacklists. There was a time, before World War II, when Fascism was ascendent and highly popular here. There was a time when huge monopolies and robber barons terrorized and repressed ordinary Americans, precisely because the government didn't have enough power to stop them. There was a time when the government tried to prohibit alcohol, and brought about the rise of organized crime mobs which reverberate to this day. There was a time when there used to be a draft, and you could be conscripted and forced to fight in a war against your will.
If you think things are bad now, you should take a look at the past and be thankful.
For the homosexual I have nothing but sadness and compassion for their personal torment. This compassion can not and does not extend to allowing the society to be perverted from the intent of our Founding Fathers.
FYI, most of the Founding Fathers viewed the Anglican and the Catholic Church as a source of great evil, and were deeply suspicious of any organized religion in general. As far as "perverting" society, I fail to see how an end to ongoing injustice and institutionalized discrimination would harm anyone. Gayness is not a disease or an ideology; it doesn't spread or damage anything. What perverts our society more than anything, is the continuing insistence that some of us should be more free, or more equal, than others.
As for personal torment, you should be happy to know that it's due mostly to people like you, who seek to make the lives of homosexuals as miserable as possible. I hope you're pleased with your "compassionate" accomplishments.
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. Word games do not change the evil of homosexuality.
Typical Catholicism... Sex is evil, happiness is evil, mutually loving relationships are evil; we'd rather have homosexuals alone and miserable, than together and happy.
Incidentally, isn't your church terribly fond of celibacy? What about all those monks who deliberately abstain from any form of sexual relationship whatsover; aren't they breaking the commandment to "go forth and multiply", not to mention going against the natural order of things? What about the medieval practice of castration, then? You want to talk about evil??
Personality traits are a choice.
Tell me, have you EVER been infatuated with another person? If so, answer me this question: did you "choose" to become infatuated, or did you only realize what happened after the fact???
Tell me, have you EVER been infatuated with another person? If so, answer me this question: did you "choose" to become infatuated, or did you only realize what happened after the fact???
Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed.
In spite of all the massive Catholic (and other denominational) efforts to date, not even once have they provided proof of a successful program of that sort. All they do is only cause further harm and pain to the homosexuals they wish to "reform"; then cover it up in propaganda slogans, biblical verses, and the few percent of borderline-homosexual (or bisexual) cases who do "convert" into a heterosexual relationship.
Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
That is incorrect. Genetic makeup never changes over the life of an individual; what does change is the epigenetics (i.e. the profile of which genes are active vs. inactive in the body.) However, sexual orientation is more complex than merely being a matter of protein or hormone expression levels. For example, it also involves structures in the brain that are established early in life, and once established cannot change barring severe brain trauma.
That is incorrect. Genetic makeup never changes over the life of an individual; what does change is the epigenetics (i.e. the profile of which genes are active vs. inactive in the body.) However, sexual orientation is more complex than merely being a matter of protein or hormone expression levels. For example, it also involves structures in the brain that are established early in life, and once established cannot change barring severe brain trauma.
The evil of homosexuality is when it tries to define society.
How in the world is homosexuality trying to "define society"? What does that even mean??
There is no dignity in man acting like animals. The homosexuals are denying the dignity of the life process.
So when a heterosexual couple is having sex, they aren't acting like animals?!?
And how in the world are homosexuals denying the dignity of life, when all they are asking for is to be granted that very same dignity that YOU work to deny them!!
So when a heterosexual couple is having sex, they aren't acting like animals?!?
And how in the world are homosexuals denying the dignity of life, when all they are asking for is to be granted that very same dignity that YOU work to deny them!!
They are attacking the establishment and dignity of marriage. They are trying to force an acceptance of a lifestyle that is a basic perversion of the intent of God. They have no regard for the good of society as a whole.
Do you even understand the difference between "society as a whole" vs. the Catholic Church?? Hint: they are not the same thing...
The "establishment" of marriage DOES NOT belong to your church. You have no monopoly over the concept or conduct of marriage. Get that through your thick skull once and for all.
There is no "indignity" in the marriage of two loving people.
It is not up to you to define the "intent of God". First of all, not everyone even believes in any god whatsoever. And of course among the people who do believe in some kind of a god, not all believe in your particular godhead. But even confining the discussion to your narrow perspective, how do you know it isn't the intent of your God, when homosexuals are "created" as such in the first place??
I also have even greater concern for their total life, physical and spiritual.
Then stop waging a personal vendetta against them! Neither their physical, nor their spiritual well-being is improved by your continuous attacks.
Then stop waging a personal vendetta against them! Neither their physical, nor their spiritual well-being is improved by your continuous attacks.
Homosexuality is not a crime it is a disorder. There are many victims when people act out their disorder. There will be much suffering as this battle grows.
A very analogous thing could be said about fundamentalist religion. Indeed, we have excellent illustrations in the likes of George Bush, Usama bin Laden, Pat Robertson, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad among thousands of others...
The Golden is from religion just as is love God with you whole mind and heart.
Actually, the Golden Rule is derived from the simple "tit for tat" strategy that is hard-wired into our emotional apparatus. And we aren't the only species endowed with this particular mechanism; any social animal is similarly equipped (e.g. primates, monkeys, wolves, horses, meercats, dolphins, etc.)
As far as love of God, it plays no role in preventing evil. Indeed, it frequently generates evil. When people love God more than their own lives or their own families, they turn into suicide bombers, they kill their own daughters for "honor", they launch Pogroms and Holocausts and Inquisitions, and wage Crusades and Jihads.
Actually, the Golden Rule is derived from the simple "tit for tat" strategy that is hard-wired into our emotional apparatus. And we aren't the only species endowed with this particular mechanism; any social animal is similarly equipped (e.g. primates, monkeys, wolves, horses, meercats, dolphins, etc.)
As far as love of God, it plays no role in preventing evil. Indeed, it frequently generates evil. When people love God more than their own lives or their own families, they turn into suicide bombers, they kill their own daughters for "honor", they launch Pogroms and Holocausts and Inquisitions, and wage Crusades and Jihads.
At the source of universal rules is a respect for life. This applies to all stages and process of life.
No, actually the source of universal rules are self-interest and reproductive imperative.
It is in the interest of preserving our own lives, that we must respect the lives of others. One doesn't need to be called Jesus, nor Einstein, to understand that "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword"; that's what we technically refer to as "bloody damned obvious".
It is in the interest of successfully reproducing and passing on our genetic legacy, that we form couples and extended family tribes, and raise our children cooperatively. The origin of this is in our evolutionary past, and the human urge to love, to reproduce, to coddle the baby, to sacrifice for the genetically close relatives -- these are all biologically hard-wired into our brains.
The tit-for-tat emotional engine, which is behind camaraderie as well as vengeance (and is the generative cause behind the Golden Rule), is an advanced mechanism enabling cohesion within larger groups than the immediate familial unit; it is present in all social animals that live in tribes, herds, and packs.
As for "all stages of life", I suppose here you are obliquely referring to the Catholic view that fetuses are human beings. That's a discussion for a different thread; suffice it to say that even your own holy book doesn't agree with you there...
Homosexuality denies this basic value of the seed of life.
That's an entirely vacuous accusation. Indeed, many homosexual couples would like nothing more than to adopt and raise children who would otherwise languish in orphanages. But aside from the objective meaninglessness of your epithet, it is also nothing more than a mere religious sentiment. You have every right to harbor it personally, but no right to codify it into coercive law.
That's an entirely vacuous accusation. Indeed, many homosexual couples would like nothing more than to adopt and raise children who would otherwise languish in orphanages. But aside from the objective meaninglessness of your epithet, it is also nothing more than a mere religious sentiment. You have every right to harbor it personally, but no right to codify it into coercive law.
How can you live a life that denies the value of that seed and deny life that could be. The basic evil is in creating a life style that is designed to deny life. That intent of denying life is a grave evil.
That is highly debatable. Would you rather have homosexual people be coerced into heterosexual marriages, and forced to live in the misery of such a lie? How many suicides annually are due to precisely such coersion? How many divorces are there annually because of it? How you manage to think that's not a "grave evil" in its own right, I have no idea...
And that's even before we discuss the evils of overpopulation. If the Catholic Church truly had its way, humans would continue breeding (with each couple having at least 10 children) until the entire surface of the planet is completely covered with human bodies standing back-to-back.
Any action that is evil must either be repented or justified away. ... The only peace is in repentance.
Another religious sentiment. Feel free to apply it to your fellow Catholics, but it has no applicability to a democratic, free civil society at large.
***HEAVILY EDITED***
Do you even understand the difference between "society as a whole" vs. the Catholic Church?? Hint: they are not the same thing...
The "establishment" of marriage DOES NOT belong to your church. You have no monopoly over the concept or conduct of marriage. Get that through your thick skull once and for all.
There is no "indignity" in the marriage of two loving people.
It is not up to you to define the "intent of God". First of all, not everyone even believes in any god whatsoever. And of course among the people who do believe in some kind of a god, not all believe in your particular godhead. But even confining the discussion to your narrow perspective, how do you know it isn't the intent of your God, when homosexuals are "created" as such in the first place??
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Catholic myself.
As to MARRIAGE, in every christian and most faiths around the world, that term has a very specific meaning and definition that strictly refers to the union of a man and a woman.
So if you are arguing for homosexual unions to be on equal terms with traditional marriage you are missing the point. They never have been and never will be. If you force the term MARRIAGE and insist that the religious sacrament be equal regardless of religious beliefs, you will be enacting laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution.
You can no more insist that religions reform their beliefs than they insist you conform to theirs.
HOWEVER, if you simply call it something else, but ask for recognition of the same rights and responsibilities for Civil Unions (or another different but acceptable title)as traditional marriage as granted by and recognized by our government, that is a very different thing and one I personally support.
I will tell you this. The crafting of your "Civil Union" laws will need be VERY specific however, lest serious and undesirable consequences to our society proceed from it.
For instance. How do you determine WHO can be recognized? Regardless of sex perhaps, but HOW MANY per union (3, 4, a hundred). What about other traditional and religious beliefs such as Incest (immediate family members) or even of other species (animals) or even imaginary entities?
The same arguments you use are frequently used to support these other ideas as well. Do you support equal relevance for all of those?
The question I would ask you then is, if it is to be supported and recognized by the government, does it need also be something that promotes the general good and welfare of the whole? I think the answer is definitely yes.
Recognizing Homosexual unions to some extent, I would agree with. To the point that they could receive equal treatment within the law as regards each partner for medical and legal reasons, retirement and inheritance, those are simple points.
But there remains much disagreement as to whether these relationships are in other ways equal in nature and nurture to traditional marriage for society as a whole.
Unfortunately for your viewpoint, MOST americans practice some form of christianity which steadfastly believes it is not equal. So there will be disagreement on rights for adoption, recognition and rights for members of the union to be a "family" and raise children.
Whether or not you agree, surely you must be able to understand that others may disagree and have every right to do so?
Do you eat the animals whom God has similarly BLESSED, for meat?
Genesis Chapter 9 verse 1
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
So yeah, I am heading downstairs for a cow burger right now. Yummy.
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.
Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0304.asp
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).
God being the source of all religion marriage is an establishment of Religion.
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Marriage is ennobling and brings dignity to the relationship of men and woman. That dignity does not come from the word but the definition of marriage as established by God. Unless you accept and agree with that definition any contract you have with another person is not marriage.
As an Atheist, that does not accept God and therefore the definition of marriage established by God you can not be married. You can make all the contracts you wish but it is not marriage.
Catholic hospitals serve everyone with any moral requirement and they do so better then any non-religious hospitals. You need an education in who is providing the most and the best of the medical care in this country.
Catholic hospitals serve everyone with any moral requirement and they do so better then any non-religious hospitals. You need an education in who is providing the most and the best of the medical care in this country.
As far as providing health care, you are not required to itemize what you pay for. You pay for a package of services; which of those services are utilized by the recipient is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS -- that very information is in fact legally protected by patient-doctor confidentiality. Now, you will protest that you are being forced to unknowingly pay for procedures to which you would object if you knew. However, that is always the case in any society that collects taxes. For example, I'd hope most religious Catholics would object to the notion of abducting from the street and sexually torturing Arabs in secret prisons; yet your tax dollars are funding precisely such activities (and many other things that you'd find highly objectionable if only you knew about them.)
Moreover, it is simply wrong-headed to think that you have any right or ability to control how an employee of yours spends their salary (or benefits, which are also part of the salary.) It is very simple: they do a job for you, and you pay them for doing the job. That's the extent of your professional relationship; you have NO RIGHT to stick your nose into the private lives of your employees. If you think you can protect yourself against funding abortion, you are delusional: even if the health plan for your employees does not pay for elective abortion, they could still use the regular paycheck YOU give them, to pay for just such a procedure. Thus in the end, it is still YOUR money that YOU gave them, which then becomes THEIR money, and is used to pay for what THEY choose as FREE consumers.
It is true that I do not have any control with what people do with their own money. This is why I must fight abortion and homosexual marriage politically. I do have control over the benefit package I choose to provide. It is also true that most people with moral defects do not perform as well and are not able to advance in a company. This makes the issue self regulating.
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area.
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area.
But if you want to complain about power and control, then maybe you should take a refresher course in American History. There was a time when a Black man couldn't marry a White woman; when a Black man couldn't own property; when a Black man's life was worthless. There was a time in America when anti-Communist hysteria brought about witch hunts and blacklists. There was a time, before World War II, when Fascism was ascendent and highly popular here. There was a time when huge monopolies and robber barons terrorized and repressed ordinary Americans, precisely because the government didn't have enough power to stop them. There was a time when the government tried to prohibit alcohol, and brought about the rise of organized crime mobs which reverberate to this day. There was a time when there used to be a draft, and you could be conscripted and forced to fight in a war against your will.
If you think things are bad now, you should take a look at the past and be thankful.
Then just as now good people rise up to remove evils from our land. The only differences, the major evils now are abortion and homosexuality. These two are trying to tear down the value and respect for life. All of our freedoms are based on the respect for life.
I am sorry you do not see defense of your country as a requirement of freedom.
I see you knowledge in history is less then your knowledge of morals and natural law.
You have many distorted views. Any person may marry any other person that qualifies under the definition of marriage. This is the same as every person may drive if they meet the qualifications.
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner. This would be a great tax break for many people. It would eliminate most estate taxes even if Congress does not do so.
I see you knowledge in history is less then your knowledge of morals and natural law.
You have many distorted views. Any person may marry any other person that qualifies under the definition of marriage. This is the same as every person may drive if they meet the qualifications.
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner. This would be a great tax break for many people. It would eliminate most estate taxes even if Congress does not do so.
As for personal torment, you should be happy to know that it's due mostly to people like you, who seek to make the lives of homosexuals as miserable as possible. I hope you're pleased with your "compassionate" accomplishments.
It is not compassionate to enable a bad situation and prolong pain. Moral pain can only be helped with moral solutions. Saying wrong is right only makes it worse.
QUOTE
Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Homosexuality and other grave moral crimes |
Homosexuality is not a crime
**********************
QUOTE
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. |
Homosexuality must be recognized for what it is and never given respectability in any form or manner.
QUOTE
I have every respect for homosexuals. In fact, I have more respect for them then they have for themselves.
**********************
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have every respect for homosexuals. In fact, I have more respect for them then they have for themselves. |
**********************
Personality traits are a CHOICE
QUOTE
The homosexual condition on a personal basis is to be considered with compassion just as any other DISABILITY that causes suffering.
**********************
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The homosexual condition on a personal basis is to be considered with compassion just as any other DISABILITY that causes suffering. |
**********************
the rights of man do not extend to animals.
Gen. 1:21
QUOTE
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth...
Gen. 1:22
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth... |
Gen. 1:22 And God BLESSED them...
Gen.1:27
QUOTE
So God created man...male and female He created them
Gen. 1:28
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So God created man...male and female He created them |
Gen. 1:28 And God BLESSED them
Gen. 1:29
QUOTE
And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed...to you it shall be for meat...
Do you eat the animals whom God has similarly BLESSED, for meat?
************************
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed...to you it shall be for meat... |
Do you eat the animals whom God has similarly BLESSED, for meat?
************************
homosexuals are trying to bring man down to the level of animals.
QUOTE
Animals do not have the capacity to understand the value of life and their actions indicate this.
Seeing Eye Dogs? The Rin Tin Tins across the country who will give their lives to protect their masters and especially their master's children?? The dolphins that present themselves to autistic/disabled children in obviously compassionate ways, with incredible results? Wild dolphins who have voluntarily protected victims at sea from sharks? All these animals, and countless more, have proven their ability to not only understand the value of life, but work to preserve LIVES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN. I am so galled by this that I'm tempted to start a thread on hero pet stories. There would be hundreds of testimonials.
**********************
You haven't handled your indoctrination into dogma well. Why not start thinking for yourself? You may yet find all the compassion that you think you have.
So tlocity.
Was it the whole altar boy thing that attracted you to religion in the first place?
Was it the whole altar boy thing that attracted you to religion in the first place?
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 25 2007, 02:25 PM)
Bovine Poo
Homosexuality is not a CHOICE.
You don't make a CHOICE as to whom you are attracted to.
You don't make a CHOICE as to how you percieve yourself as either masculine or feminine.
There is no UPSIDE to being a homosexual, so NO, people don't CHOOSE to be one, what they CHOOSE is to try to make the most out of the hand they were given.
That little bit of 'being normal' is what you would deny them.
For your OWN selfish reasons.
And no, your genetic makeup DOES NOT CHANGE with life experience.
Your IGNORANCE of biology, sexuality and genetics is just something you use to support your rabid homophobia.
Arthur
Adoucette, there are some problems with the "no choice" argument above.
I've only read this one post of yours on the subject, so please forgive if the following points have already been answered.
I may have no choice about whether I'm attracted to my best friend's wife, but I have choices aplenty about what I choose to do about it.
The fact that we call it "sexual preference" seems to hint that there are choices. PREFERENCE is not COMPULSION.
It's possible there are many levels of sexual attraction between those who are solidly heterosexual, those who are interested (or somewhat interested) in people of both sexes, and those who are solidly homosexual.
If you have evidence that sexuality is exclusively either-or, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Whether taking on the homosexual lifestyle is good or bad, I don't know for certain, but I have enough miserable, openly homosexual friends to know that making that decision does not predict happiness.
(Of course genetic makeup doesn't change with life experience, unless that experience includes juggling plutonium.)
Homosexuality is not a CHOICE.
You don't make a CHOICE as to whom you are attracted to.
You don't make a CHOICE as to how you percieve yourself as either masculine or feminine.
There is no UPSIDE to being a homosexual, so NO, people don't CHOOSE to be one, what they CHOOSE is to try to make the most out of the hand they were given.
That little bit of 'being normal' is what you would deny them.
For your OWN selfish reasons.
And no, your genetic makeup DOES NOT CHANGE with life experience.
Your IGNORANCE of biology, sexuality and genetics is just something you use to support your rabid homophobia.
Arthur
Adoucette, there are some problems with the "no choice" argument above.
I've only read this one post of yours on the subject, so please forgive if the following points have already been answered.
I may have no choice about whether I'm attracted to my best friend's wife, but I have choices aplenty about what I choose to do about it.
The fact that we call it "sexual preference" seems to hint that there are choices. PREFERENCE is not COMPULSION.
It's possible there are many levels of sexual attraction between those who are solidly heterosexual, those who are interested (or somewhat interested) in people of both sexes, and those who are solidly homosexual.
If you have evidence that sexuality is exclusively either-or, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Whether taking on the homosexual lifestyle is good or bad, I don't know for certain, but I have enough miserable, openly homosexual friends to know that making that decision does not predict happiness.
(Of course genetic makeup doesn't change with life experience, unless that experience includes juggling plutonium.)
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 25 2007, 06:16 AM)
Marriage is an establishment of religion and the constitution prohibits any laws against any establishment of religion
You need to get out more; the world does not consist exclusively of Catholics.
Marriage is a set of contracts between (usually) two people of opposite sex. It obligates these people to live together, share their resources, care for each other, raise children in collaboration, and then (should they so choose) pass on their resources to their children upon death. None of this has anything to do with establishment of any kind of religion.
Atheistic societies like the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China had conducted (and in China's case, still conducting) hundreds of millions of civil marriages. They would be highly amused by the claim that they are somehow establishing any kind of religion in the process!!
QUOTE
In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition.
I know it may come as a shock to you, but not all of us are members of your church. Therefore, many of us (indeed, the majority of the world's population) are not constrained by any definitions of marriage that your church seeks to impose upon its own membership.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is and has been defined by the Catholic Church and there is no marriage out side of that definition. |
I know it may come as a shock to you, but not all of us are members of your church. Therefore, many of us (indeed, the majority of the world's population) are not constrained by any definitions of marriage that your church seeks to impose upon its own membership.
For the government to perform a marriage is the government performing a religious right.
No, government is prohibited from performing religious rites (even though it routinely flouts such prohibitions, for example by conducting prayer services in Congress at taxpayer expense...) When a civil marriage is performed, the government simply recognizes the set of contracts concluded between a couple. From that point on, those contracts are actionable and enforceable through law. Government establishes and enforces laws; that's one of its primary functions -- thus it is completely within its right to define, conduct, and administer civil (i.e. non-religious) marriage.
QUOTE
As an atheist, you can not be married.
Correction: as an atheist, I cannot be married in your church. But I wouldn't want to be married by any church or priest in the first place; that would make a travesty of the whole affair.
On the other hand, my parents would certainly be surprised by your declaration, as they are also both atheists and have been happily married for 35 years.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
As an atheist, you can not be married. |
Correction: as an atheist, I cannot be married in your church. But I wouldn't want to be married by any church or priest in the first place; that would make a travesty of the whole affair.
On the other hand, my parents would certainly be surprised by your declaration, as they are also both atheists and have been happily married for 35 years.
The government can not require a person to aid immorality. ... Providing support for the immoral act of homosexual sex is against my religion.
Nobody is asking or forcing you to provide support for any act of sex, whether it be homosexual, heterosexual, vaginal, anal, oral, masturbatory, group, bestial, or paedophiliac. However, what you are being asked to do, is to BUTT OUT of people's PRIVATE lives. Quite simply, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. At least that's the case in free societies; for a meditation on the alternatives, refer to 1984 by George Orwell.
The only time the society (through its government) can justifiably assert control over sexual acts, is when those acts involve victimization. For example, acts of paedophilia victimize children, and can therefore be ligitimately (and rightly) outlawed by the state (and by the way, your particular church might wisht to take down some notes here...) By contrast, homosexual sex has no victims: it occurs between consenting adults.
QUOTE
Just as no religious hospital can be required to provide abortion, I can not be required to provide health care for abortion or homosexual partners.
That depends. If a religious hospital wants to receive taxpayer subsidies, then it cannot exercise discriminatory practices. If it's a private hospital that exclusively caters only to members of its own religion, then of course it is within its rights to do whatever it wishes to them (with their consent.)
As far as providing health care, you are not required to itemize what you pay for. You pay for a package of services; which of those services are utilized by the recipient is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS -- that very information is in fact legally protected by patient-doctor confidentiality. Now, you will protest that you are being forced to unknowingly pay for procedures to which you would object if you knew. However, that is always the case in any society that collects taxes. For example, I'd hope most religious Catholics would object to the notion of abducting from the street and sexually torturing Arabs in secret prisons; yet your tax dollars are funding precisely such activities (and many other things that you'd find highly objectionable if only you knew about them.)
Moreover, it is simply wrong-headed to think that you have any right or ability to control how an employee of yours spends their salary (or benefits, which are also part of the salary.) It is very simple: they do a job for you, and you pay them for doing the job. That's the extent of your professional relationship; you have NO RIGHT to stick your nose into the private lives of your employees. If you think you can protect yourself against funding abortion, you are delusional: even if the health plan for your employees does not pay for elective abortion, they could still use the regular paycheck YOU give them, to pay for just such a procedure. Thus in the end, it is still YOUR money that YOU gave them, which then becomes THEIR money, and is used to pay for what THEY choose as FREE consumers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Just as no religious hospital can be required to provide abortion, I can not be required to provide health care for abortion or homosexual partners. |
That depends. If a religious hospital wants to receive taxpayer subsidies, then it cannot exercise discriminatory practices. If it's a private hospital that exclusively caters only to members of its own religion, then of course it is within its rights to do whatever it wishes to them (with their consent.)
As far as providing health care, you are not required to itemize what you pay for. You pay for a package of services; which of those services are utilized by the recipient is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS -- that very information is in fact legally protected by patient-doctor confidentiality. Now, you will protest that you are being forced to unknowingly pay for procedures to which you would object if you knew. However, that is always the case in any society that collects taxes. For example, I'd hope most religious Catholics would object to the notion of abducting from the street and sexually torturing Arabs in secret prisons; yet your tax dollars are funding precisely such activities (and many other things that you'd find highly objectionable if only you knew about them.)
Moreover, it is simply wrong-headed to think that you have any right or ability to control how an employee of yours spends their salary (or benefits, which are also part of the salary.) It is very simple: they do a job for you, and you pay them for doing the job. That's the extent of your professional relationship; you have NO RIGHT to stick your nose into the private lives of your employees. If you think you can protect yourself against funding abortion, you are delusional: even if the health plan for your employees does not pay for elective abortion, they could still use the regular paycheck YOU give them, to pay for just such a procedure. Thus in the end, it is still YOUR money that YOU gave them, which then becomes THEIR money, and is used to pay for what THEY choose as FREE consumers.
Yours is a view against basic civil liberties. Civil liberties are not requirements of discrimination between people but civil liberties are the requirement of limiting government power.
In fact, civil liberties are neither. It is the government's job to establish a lawful, just, and peaceful environment for people to live in; this involves regulation of what people can/must vs. can't/mustn't do to other people, whether directly or indirectly. However, when it comes to private affairs of individuals, the government has no regulatory role. Ditto for various individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, association, petition, etc.
Crime prevention and law enforcement are therefore NOT mutually exclusive with assurance of civil liberties, because they concern distinctly separate spheres of activity.
QUOTE
If you have not noticed the noble idea of eliminating discrimination between people has resulted in more power and control of all of our lives by the government. Now you wish to use that power to deny religious freedom.
Whatever powers of control the government had gained due to the civil rights movement, are laughable compared to the hegemonic, Stalinist ambitions of the orthodox Catholic Church (and many other fundamentalist religions.) Religious freedom does not include the right to bend the rest of the world to your religious doctrine against its will. Your religious freedom applies only to what YOU do; it does not apply to what you want to do to OTHER PEOPLE. In the latter case, religious freedom means that it's the other people's right not to be harassed by you, that takes precedence over what you might want.
But if you want to complain about power and control, then maybe you should take a refresher course in American History. There was a time when a Black man couldn't marry a White woman; when a Black man couldn't own property; when a Black man's life was worthless. There was a time in America when anti-Communist hysteria brought about witch hunts and blacklists. There was a time, before World War II, when Fascism was ascendent and highly popular here. There was a time when huge monopolies and robber barons terrorized and repressed ordinary Americans, precisely because the government didn't have enough power to stop them. There was a time when the government tried to prohibit alcohol, and brought about the rise of organized crime mobs which reverberate to this day. There was a time when there used to be a draft, and you could be conscripted and forced to fight in a war against your will.
If you think things are bad now, you should take a look at the past and be thankful.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you have not noticed the noble idea of eliminating discrimination between people has resulted in more power and control of all of our lives by the government. Now you wish to use that power to deny religious freedom. |
Whatever powers of control the government had gained due to the civil rights movement, are laughable compared to the hegemonic, Stalinist ambitions of the orthodox Catholic Church (and many other fundamentalist religions.) Religious freedom does not include the right to bend the rest of the world to your religious doctrine against its will. Your religious freedom applies only to what YOU do; it does not apply to what you want to do to OTHER PEOPLE. In the latter case, religious freedom means that it's the other people's right not to be harassed by you, that takes precedence over what you might want.
But if you want to complain about power and control, then maybe you should take a refresher course in American History. There was a time when a Black man couldn't marry a White woman; when a Black man couldn't own property; when a Black man's life was worthless. There was a time in America when anti-Communist hysteria brought about witch hunts and blacklists. There was a time, before World War II, when Fascism was ascendent and highly popular here. There was a time when huge monopolies and robber barons terrorized and repressed ordinary Americans, precisely because the government didn't have enough power to stop them. There was a time when the government tried to prohibit alcohol, and brought about the rise of organized crime mobs which reverberate to this day. There was a time when there used to be a draft, and you could be conscripted and forced to fight in a war against your will.
If you think things are bad now, you should take a look at the past and be thankful.
For the homosexual I have nothing but sadness and compassion for their personal torment. This compassion can not and does not extend to allowing the society to be perverted from the intent of our Founding Fathers.
FYI, most of the Founding Fathers viewed the Anglican and the Catholic Church as a source of great evil, and were deeply suspicious of any organized religion in general. As far as "perverting" society, I fail to see how an end to ongoing injustice and institutionalized discrimination would harm anyone. Gayness is not a disease or an ideology; it doesn't spread or damage anything. What perverts our society more than anything, is the continuing insistence that some of us should be more free, or more equal, than others.
As for personal torment, you should be happy to know that it's due mostly to people like you, who seek to make the lives of homosexuals as miserable as possible. I hope you're pleased with your "compassionate" accomplishments.
I am inclined to agree with TaddPeake's reasoning on CHOICE involving all sexual matters. Also he very eloquently explained what the "homosexulity is a choice" argument actually is. Many gay sympothizers don't actually get what the other side of the argument is and , just as much state the obvious, responding: "You don't choose it your born with it."
The entire Catholic and evangelical interpretation of Christinan Ethics is based on the idea that we are perfect spirits put inside evil creatures. These spirit's hosts are evil and will tempt them with every sin imaginable. The test is for your spirit (or source of your free will) to resist the temptations, thus earning a just reward. They have defined homosexuality as one of those testing temptations, or one of those things that some of us have the added challenge of overcoming.
"Homosexuality is a choice" and "homosexuality is something you're born with" are basically the same argument if looked at from most religous philosophical viewpoints. And we have reached a point where both sides of the coin are pulling what they want from Science to give credence to their arguments.
This is not a Scientific argument. It is not a religous argument. It is purely political. And I believe that we should live in a place where personal matters, such as what people do with their sex organs, should not be the business of our government. And since no church shall have control of our country's governing body, their arguments should not have authority in the matter. And this is beside the point that any tale of New Testament compassion will point to the idea that even if these people are making an evil choice, the rest of us as equal sinners have no authority to deny them any of the comfort that their homosexual counterparts enjoy.
The entire Catholic and evangelical interpretation of Christinan Ethics is based on the idea that we are perfect spirits put inside evil creatures. These spirit's hosts are evil and will tempt them with every sin imaginable. The test is for your spirit (or source of your free will) to resist the temptations, thus earning a just reward. They have defined homosexuality as one of those testing temptations, or one of those things that some of us have the added challenge of overcoming.
"Homosexuality is a choice" and "homosexuality is something you're born with" are basically the same argument if looked at from most religous philosophical viewpoints. And we have reached a point where both sides of the coin are pulling what they want from Science to give credence to their arguments.
This is not a Scientific argument. It is not a religous argument. It is purely political. And I believe that we should live in a place where personal matters, such as what people do with their sex organs, should not be the business of our government. And since no church shall have control of our country's governing body, their arguments should not have authority in the matter. And this is beside the point that any tale of New Testament compassion will point to the idea that even if these people are making an evil choice, the rest of us as equal sinners have no authority to deny them any of the comfort that their homosexual counterparts enjoy.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 25 2007, 07:17 AM)
Homosexuals perform homosexual acts. Word games do not change the evil of homosexuality.
Typical Catholicism... Sex is evil, happiness is evil, mutually loving relationships are evil; we'd rather have homosexuals alone and miserable, than together and happy.
Incidentally, isn't your church terribly fond of celibacy? What about all those monks who deliberately abstain from any form of sexual relationship whatsover; aren't they breaking the commandment to "go forth and multiply", not to mention going against the natural order of things? What about the medieval practice of castration, then? You want to talk about evil??
QUOTE
Personality traits are a choice.
Tell me, have you EVER been infatuated with another person? If so, answer me this question: did you "choose" to become infatuated, or did you only realize what happened after the fact???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Personality traits are a choice. |
Tell me, have you EVER been infatuated with another person? If so, answer me this question: did you "choose" to become infatuated, or did you only realize what happened after the fact???
Those traits that are connected to genetic makeup can also be changed.
In spite of all the massive Catholic (and other denominational) efforts to date, not even once have they provided proof of a successful program of that sort. All they do is only cause further harm and pain to the homosexuals they wish to "reform"; then cover it up in propaganda slogans, biblical verses, and the few percent of borderline-homosexual (or bisexual) cases who do "convert" into a heterosexual relationship.
QUOTE
Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience.
That is incorrect. Genetic makeup never changes over the life of an individual; what does change is the epigenetics (i.e. the profile of which genes are active vs. inactive in the body.) However, sexual orientation is more complex than merely being a matter of protein or hormone expression levels. For example, it also involves structures in the brain that are established early in life, and once established cannot change barring severe brain trauma.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Experiments of genetic makeup of identical twins shows that at birth the genetic makeup is identical but changes drastically with life experience. |
That is incorrect. Genetic makeup never changes over the life of an individual; what does change is the epigenetics (i.e. the profile of which genes are active vs. inactive in the body.) However, sexual orientation is more complex than merely being a matter of protein or hormone expression levels. For example, it also involves structures in the brain that are established early in life, and once established cannot change barring severe brain trauma.
The evil of homosexuality is when it tries to define society.
How in the world is homosexuality trying to "define society"? What does that even mean??
QUOTE
There is no dignity in man acting like animals. The homosexuals are denying the dignity of the life process.
So when a heterosexual couple is having sex, they aren't acting like animals?!?
And how in the world are homosexuals denying the dignity of life, when all they are asking for is to be granted that very same dignity that YOU work to deny them!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
There is no dignity in man acting like animals. The homosexuals are denying the dignity of the life process. |
So when a heterosexual couple is having sex, they aren't acting like animals?!?
And how in the world are homosexuals denying the dignity of life, when all they are asking for is to be granted that very same dignity that YOU work to deny them!!
They are attacking the establishment and dignity of marriage. They are trying to force an acceptance of a lifestyle that is a basic perversion of the intent of God. They have no regard for the good of society as a whole.
Do you even understand the difference between "society as a whole" vs. the Catholic Church?? Hint: they are not the same thing...
The "establishment" of marriage DOES NOT belong to your church. You have no monopoly over the concept or conduct of marriage. Get that through your thick skull once and for all.
There is no "indignity" in the marriage of two loving people.
It is not up to you to define the "intent of God". First of all, not everyone even believes in any god whatsoever. And of course among the people who do believe in some kind of a god, not all believe in your particular godhead. But even confining the discussion to your narrow perspective, how do you know it isn't the intent of your God, when homosexuals are "created" as such in the first place??
QUOTE
I also have even greater concern for their total life, physical and spiritual.
Then stop waging a personal vendetta against them! Neither their physical, nor their spiritual well-being is improved by your continuous attacks.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I also have even greater concern for their total life, physical and spiritual. |
Then stop waging a personal vendetta against them! Neither their physical, nor their spiritual well-being is improved by your continuous attacks.
Homosexuality is not a crime it is a disorder. There are many victims when people act out their disorder. There will be much suffering as this battle grows.
A very analogous thing could be said about fundamentalist religion. Indeed, we have excellent illustrations in the likes of George Bush, Usama bin Laden, Pat Robertson, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad among thousands of others...
QUOTE
The Golden is from religion just as is love God with you whole mind and heart.
Actually, the Golden Rule is derived from the simple "tit for tat" strategy that is hard-wired into our emotional apparatus. And we aren't the only species endowed with this particular mechanism; any social animal is similarly equipped (e.g. primates, monkeys, wolves, horses, meercats, dolphins, etc.)
As far as love of God, it plays no role in preventing evil. Indeed, it frequently generates evil. When people love God more than their own lives or their own families, they turn into suicide bombers, they kill their own daughters for "honor", they launch Pogroms and Holocausts and Inquisitions, and wage Crusades and Jihads.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The Golden is from religion just as is love God with you whole mind and heart. |
Actually, the Golden Rule is derived from the simple "tit for tat" strategy that is hard-wired into our emotional apparatus. And we aren't the only species endowed with this particular mechanism; any social animal is similarly equipped (e.g. primates, monkeys, wolves, horses, meercats, dolphins, etc.)
As far as love of God, it plays no role in preventing evil. Indeed, it frequently generates evil. When people love God more than their own lives or their own families, they turn into suicide bombers, they kill their own daughters for "honor", they launch Pogroms and Holocausts and Inquisitions, and wage Crusades and Jihads.
At the source of universal rules is a respect for life. This applies to all stages and process of life.
No, actually the source of universal rules are self-interest and reproductive imperative.
It is in the interest of preserving our own lives, that we must respect the lives of others. One doesn't need to be called Jesus, nor Einstein, to understand that "he who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword"; that's what we technically refer to as "bloody damned obvious".
It is in the interest of successfully reproducing and passing on our genetic legacy, that we form couples and extended family tribes, and raise our children cooperatively. The origin of this is in our evolutionary past, and the human urge to love, to reproduce, to coddle the baby, to sacrifice for the genetically close relatives -- these are all biologically hard-wired into our brains.
The tit-for-tat emotional engine, which is behind camaraderie as well as vengeance (and is the generative cause behind the Golden Rule), is an advanced mechanism enabling cohesion within larger groups than the immediate familial unit; it is present in all social animals that live in tribes, herds, and packs.
As for "all stages of life", I suppose here you are obliquely referring to the Catholic view that fetuses are human beings. That's a discussion for a different thread; suffice it to say that even your own holy book doesn't agree with you there...
QUOTE
Homosexuality denies this basic value of the seed of life.
That's an entirely vacuous accusation. Indeed, many homosexual couples would like nothing more than to adopt and raise children who would otherwise languish in orphanages. But aside from the objective meaninglessness of your epithet, it is also nothing more than a mere religious sentiment. You have every right to harbor it personally, but no right to codify it into coercive law.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Homosexuality denies this basic value of the seed of life. |
That's an entirely vacuous accusation. Indeed, many homosexual couples would like nothing more than to adopt and raise children who would otherwise languish in orphanages. But aside from the objective meaninglessness of your epithet, it is also nothing more than a mere religious sentiment. You have every right to harbor it personally, but no right to codify it into coercive law.
How can you live a life that denies the value of that seed and deny life that could be. The basic evil is in creating a life style that is designed to deny life. That intent of denying life is a grave evil.
That is highly debatable. Would you rather have homosexual people be coerced into heterosexual marriages, and forced to live in the misery of such a lie? How many suicides annually are due to precisely such coersion? How many divorces are there annually because of it? How you manage to think that's not a "grave evil" in its own right, I have no idea...
And that's even before we discuss the evils of overpopulation. If the Catholic Church truly had its way, humans would continue breeding (with each couple having at least 10 children) until the entire surface of the planet is completely covered with human bodies standing back-to-back.
QUOTE
Any action that is evil must either be repented or justified away. ... The only peace is in repentance.
Another religious sentiment. Feel free to apply it to your fellow Catholics, but it has no applicability to a democratic, free civil society at large.
QUOTE (TaddPeake+Aug 25 2007, 08:14 PM)
I may have no choice about whether I'm attracted to my best friend's wife, but I have choices aplenty about what I choose to do about it.
The fact that we call it "sexual preference" seems to hint that there are choices. PREFERENCE is not COMPULSION.
The first point is not valid.
In that example you obviously have a choice about what to do about it, you can obviously simply find another woman who you are attracted to.
But to make it a valid analogy to homosexuality then EVERY OTHER WOMAN is the wife of another of your friends.
Get it?
If not, lets try it this way.
Forget the wife.
What would it take to make YOU be attracted to and want to have sex with your BEST FRIEND?
You say its "just a preference", so
What would it take to make you prefer the same sex?
Arthur
The fact that we call it "sexual preference" seems to hint that there are choices. PREFERENCE is not COMPULSION.
The first point is not valid.
In that example you obviously have a choice about what to do about it, you can obviously simply find another woman who you are attracted to.
But to make it a valid analogy to homosexuality then EVERY OTHER WOMAN is the wife of another of your friends.
Get it?
If not, lets try it this way.
Forget the wife.
What would it take to make YOU be attracted to and want to have sex with your BEST FRIEND?
You say its "just a preference", so
What would it take to make you prefer the same sex?
Arthur
QUOTE (TaddPeake+Aug 25 2007, 08:14 PM)
Whether taking on the homosexual lifestyle is good or bad, I don't know for certain, but I have enough miserable, openly homosexual friends to know that making that decision does not predict happiness.
I've known a fair number of homosexuals over the years and I have to say that well adjusted with stable homelifes is a rarity.
Which is my point, there is NO UPSIDE to being a homosexual.
There is not a single homosexual I know that wouldn't be straight if they could be.
Arthur
I've known a fair number of homosexuals over the years and I have to say that well adjusted with stable homelifes is a rarity.
Which is my point, there is NO UPSIDE to being a homosexual.
There is not a single homosexual I know that wouldn't be straight if they could be.
Arthur
If the matter of "choice" is simply whether to be closeted or openly gay, then I think it's pretty clear that closeted gays are miserable ipso facto. As to whether openly gay people are miserable, I think it's more a function of how the rest of the society treats them.
I have an openly gay colleague who has been living with his partner, in a stable and loving relationship, for the last 15 years. They have their own house with a garden, two cats, and enjoy skiing, kayaking, and para gliding. This guy's also a pilot, has his own small plane (a Mooney), and likes to fly back to Canada to visit his family every couple of weeks. He's a physics PhD (from Berkeley), has an MBA, and right now manages product development for a medical device company. Great guy all around, not the stereotypically effeminate type that most people would expect, but perfectly masculine in every way (though his younger brother, who's also gay, is much more 'flamboyant', from what I hear) -- except he doesn't have a thing for women. Basically, other than being gay, they are a perfectly normal, fulfilled, happy couple. Except they can't be formally married, or adopt any kids, or pass on inheritance to each other automatically, or have medical decision privileges, or, or, or... Of course, they also happen to live in northern California; I doubt they could be as "comfortable" living in some other areas of this country...
I have an openly gay colleague who has been living with his partner, in a stable and loving relationship, for the last 15 years. They have their own house with a garden, two cats, and enjoy skiing, kayaking, and para gliding. This guy's also a pilot, has his own small plane (a Mooney), and likes to fly back to Canada to visit his family every couple of weeks. He's a physics PhD (from Berkeley), has an MBA, and right now manages product development for a medical device company. Great guy all around, not the stereotypically effeminate type that most people would expect, but perfectly masculine in every way (though his younger brother, who's also gay, is much more 'flamboyant', from what I hear) -- except he doesn't have a thing for women. Basically, other than being gay, they are a perfectly normal, fulfilled, happy couple. Except they can't be formally married, or adopt any kids, or pass on inheritance to each other automatically, or have medical decision privileges, or, or, or... Of course, they also happen to live in northern California; I doubt they could be as "comfortable" living in some other areas of this country...
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Aug 26 2007, 02:14 AM)
***HEAVILY EDITED***
Do you even understand the difference between "society as a whole" vs. the Catholic Church?? Hint: they are not the same thing...
The "establishment" of marriage DOES NOT belong to your church. You have no monopoly over the concept or conduct of marriage. Get that through your thick skull once and for all.
There is no "indignity" in the marriage of two loving people.
It is not up to you to define the "intent of God". First of all, not everyone even believes in any god whatsoever. And of course among the people who do believe in some kind of a god, not all believe in your particular godhead. But even confining the discussion to your narrow perspective, how do you know it isn't the intent of your God, when homosexuals are "created" as such in the first place??
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Catholic myself.
As to MARRIAGE, in every christian and most faiths around the world, that term has a very specific meaning and definition that strictly refers to the union of a man and a woman.
So if you are arguing for homosexual unions to be on equal terms with traditional marriage you are missing the point. They never have been and never will be. If you force the term MARRIAGE and insist that the religious sacrament be equal regardless of religious beliefs, you will be enacting laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution.
You can no more insist that religions reform their beliefs than they insist you conform to theirs.
HOWEVER, if you simply call it something else, but ask for recognition of the same rights and responsibilities for Civil Unions (or another different but acceptable title)as traditional marriage as granted by and recognized by our government, that is a very different thing and one I personally support.
I will tell you this. The crafting of your "Civil Union" laws will need be VERY specific however, lest serious and undesirable consequences to our society proceed from it.
For instance. How do you determine WHO can be recognized? Regardless of sex perhaps, but HOW MANY per union (3, 4, a hundred). What about other traditional and religious beliefs such as Incest (immediate family members) or even of other species (animals) or even imaginary entities?
The same arguments you use are frequently used to support these other ideas as well. Do you support equal relevance for all of those?
The question I would ask you then is, if it is to be supported and recognized by the government, does it need also be something that promotes the general good and welfare of the whole? I think the answer is definitely yes.
Recognizing Homosexual unions to some extent, I would agree with. To the point that they could receive equal treatment within the law as regards each partner for medical and legal reasons, retirement and inheritance, those are simple points.
But there remains much disagreement as to whether these relationships are in other ways equal in nature and nurture to traditional marriage for society as a whole.
Unfortunately for your viewpoint, MOST americans practice some form of christianity which steadfastly believes it is not equal. So there will be disagreement on rights for adoption, recognition and rights for members of the union to be a "family" and raise children.
Whether or not you agree, surely you must be able to understand that others may disagree and have every right to do so?
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 25 2007, 05:31 PM)
Do you eat the animals whom God has similarly BLESSED, for meat?
Genesis Chapter 9 verse 1
Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
So yeah, I am heading downstairs for a cow burger right now. Yummy.
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Aug 25 2007, 11:38 PM)
As to whether openly gay people are miserable, I think it's more a function of how the rest of the society treats them.
I have an openly gay colleague who has been living with his partner, in a stable and loving relationship, for the last 15 years. They have their own house with a garden, two cats, and enjoy skiing, kayaking, and para gliding. This guy's also a pilot, has his own small plane (a Mooney), and likes to fly back to Canada to visit his family every couple of weeks. He's a physics PhD (from Berkeley), has an MBA, and right now manages product development for a medical device company. Great guy all around, not the stereotypically effeminate type that most people would expect, but perfectly masculine in every way (though his younger brother, who's also gay, is much more 'flamboyant', from what I hear) -- except he doesn't have a thing for women. Basically, other than being gay, they are a perfectly normal, fulfilled, happy couple. Except they can't be formally married, or adopt any kids, or pass on inheritance to each other automatically, or have medical decision privileges, or, or, or... Of course, they also happen to live in northern California; I doubt they could be as "comfortable" living in some other areas of this country...
Certainly that has a LOT to do with it.
But even if you were treated identically, its still a less attractive option. Besides the legal shiit, the sexual parts just don't fit as well together and you can't have any kids of your own.
I guarantee you, that if that couple had a "fairy godmother" that could instantly turn the one partner into a woman and at the same time change the other's sexual preference to be for females, they would take that change in a heartbeat.
Ask them
As I said, they didn't CHOOSE to be homosexual, but they are making the best of it.
Arthur
I have an openly gay colleague who has been living with his partner, in a stable and loving relationship, for the last 15 years. They have their own house with a garden, two cats, and enjoy skiing, kayaking, and para gliding. This guy's also a pilot, has his own small plane (a Mooney), and likes to fly back to Canada to visit his family every couple of weeks. He's a physics PhD (from Berkeley), has an MBA, and right now manages product development for a medical device company. Great guy all around, not the stereotypically effeminate type that most people would expect, but perfectly masculine in every way (though his younger brother, who's also gay, is much more 'flamboyant', from what I hear) -- except he doesn't have a thing for women. Basically, other than being gay, they are a perfectly normal, fulfilled, happy couple. Except they can't be formally married, or adopt any kids, or pass on inheritance to each other automatically, or have medical decision privileges, or, or, or... Of course, they also happen to live in northern California; I doubt they could be as "comfortable" living in some other areas of this country...
Certainly that has a LOT to do with it.
But even if you were treated identically, its still a less attractive option. Besides the legal shiit, the sexual parts just don't fit as well together and you can't have any kids of your own.
I guarantee you, that if that couple had a "fairy godmother" that could instantly turn the one partner into a woman and at the same time change the other's sexual preference to be for females, they would take that change in a heartbeat.
Ask them
As I said, they didn't CHOOSE to be homosexual, but they are making the best of it.
Arthur
Yeah that's not the only direct contradiction in the Bible, there are plenty more. No wonder there are so many versions of Christianity and so much explaining needed for OT inconsistancies.
The only feeling I have on this is Sodomy is wrong...
Not having experienced it, but being one who has been there for those who have experienced this. I have gained an insight into the reasons why it is wrong and also when we realise what our seuxality is truely for according to scripture and become more pure then we can understand what life really is about in this aspect. You must first be pure of your sexuality in a way that you understand it is for making children and has not another purpose in this world. It's an interesting topic to try to understand, though it's not one I'd likely figure most would try to adhere to anyway. Not interested in sharing much more than that though some things were meant to be ours. When it effects children it is most tragic I would say though it's all in how you look at it medically and spiritually. Maybe they assumed this may make them tougher?
Not having experienced it, but being one who has been there for those who have experienced this. I have gained an insight into the reasons why it is wrong and also when we realise what our seuxality is truely for according to scripture and become more pure then we can understand what life really is about in this aspect. You must first be pure of your sexuality in a way that you understand it is for making children and has not another purpose in this world. It's an interesting topic to try to understand, though it's not one I'd likely figure most would try to adhere to anyway. Not interested in sharing much more than that though some things were meant to be ours. When it effects children it is most tragic I would say though it's all in how you look at it medically and spiritually. Maybe they assumed this may make them tougher?
QUOTE
You need to get out more; the world does not consist exclusively of Catholics.
Marriage is a set of contracts between (usually) two people of opposite sex. It obligates these people to live together, share their resources, care for each other, raise children in collaboration, and then (should they so choose) pass on their resources to their children upon death. None of this has anything to do with establishment of any kind of religion.
Atheistic societies like the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China had conducted (and in China's case, still conducting) hundreds of millions of civil marriages. They would be highly amused by the claim that they are somehow establishing any kind of religion in the process!!
Marriage is a set of contracts between (usually) two people of opposite sex. It obligates these people to live together, share their resources, care for each other, raise children in collaboration, and then (should they so choose) pass on their resources to their children upon death. None of this has anything to do with establishment of any kind of religion.
Atheistic societies like the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China had conducted (and in China's case, still conducting) hundreds of millions of civil marriages. They would be highly amused by the claim that they are somehow establishing any kind of religion in the process!!
Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate from either the church or state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.
Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God, can only be the union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law. In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
The union of husband and wife becomes, over a lifetime, a great good for themselves, their family, communities, and society. Marriage is a gift to be cherished and protected.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0304.asp
Marriage, as instituted by God, is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love. They commit themselves completely to each other and to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world and caring for them. The call to marriage is woven deeply into the human spirit. Man and woman are equal. However, as created, they are different from but made for each other. This complementarity, including sexual difference, draws them together in a mutually loving union that should be always open to the procreation of children (see Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], nos. 1602-1605).
God being the source of all religion marriage is an establishment of Religion.
Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Marriage is ennobling and brings dignity to the relationship of men and woman. That dignity does not come from the word but the definition of marriage as established by God. Unless you accept and agree with that definition any contract you have with another person is not marriage.
As an Atheist, that does not accept God and therefore the definition of marriage established by God you can not be married. You can make all the contracts you wish but it is not marriage.
QUOTE
That depends. If a religious hospital wants to receive taxpayer subsidies, then it cannot exercise discriminatory practices. If it's a private hospital that exclusively caters only to members of its own religion, then of course it is within its rights to do whatever it wishes to them (with their consent.)
Catholic hospitals serve everyone with any moral requirement and they do so better then any non-religious hospitals. You need an education in who is providing the most and the best of the medical care in this country.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That depends. If a religious hospital wants to receive taxpayer subsidies, then it cannot exercise discriminatory practices. If it's a private hospital that exclusively caters only to members of its own religion, then of course it is within its rights to do whatever it wishes to them (with their consent.) |
Catholic hospitals serve everyone with any moral requirement and they do so better then any non-religious hospitals. You need an education in who is providing the most and the best of the medical care in this country.
As far as providing health care, you are not required to itemize what you pay for. You pay for a package of services; which of those services are utilized by the recipient is in fact NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS -- that very information is in fact legally protected by patient-doctor confidentiality. Now, you will protest that you are being forced to unknowingly pay for procedures to which you would object if you knew. However, that is always the case in any society that collects taxes. For example, I'd hope most religious Catholics would object to the notion of abducting from the street and sexually torturing Arabs in secret prisons; yet your tax dollars are funding precisely such activities (and many other things that you'd find highly objectionable if only you knew about them.)
Moreover, it is simply wrong-headed to think that you have any right or ability to control how an employee of yours spends their salary (or benefits, which are also part of the salary.) It is very simple: they do a job for you, and you pay them for doing the job. That's the extent of your professional relationship; you have NO RIGHT to stick your nose into the private lives of your employees. If you think you can protect yourself against funding abortion, you are delusional: even if the health plan for your employees does not pay for elective abortion, they could still use the regular paycheck YOU give them, to pay for just such a procedure. Thus in the end, it is still YOUR money that YOU gave them, which then becomes THEIR money, and is used to pay for what THEY choose as FREE consumers.
It is true that I do not have any control with what people do with their own money. This is why I must fight abortion and homosexual marriage politically. I do have control over the benefit package I choose to provide. It is also true that most people with moral defects do not perform as well and are not able to advance in a company. This makes the issue self regulating.
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Aug 26 2007, 10:20 AM)
The only feeling I have on this is Sodomy is wrong...
A victim? Bikers weren't nice with you?
A victim? Bikers weren't nice with you?
QUOTE
Whatever powers of control the government had gained due to the civil rights movement, are laughable compared to the hegemonic, Stalinist ambitions of the orthodox Catholic Church (and many other fundamentalist religions.) Religious freedom does not include the right to bend the rest of the world to your religious doctrine against its will. Your religious freedom applies only to what YOU do; it does not apply to what you want to do to OTHER PEOPLE. In the latter case, religious freedom means that it's the other people's right not to be harassed by you, that takes precedence over what you might want.
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Whatever powers of control the government had gained due to the civil rights movement, are laughable compared to the hegemonic, Stalinist ambitions of the orthodox Catholic Church (and many other fundamentalist religions.) Religious freedom does not include the right to bend the rest of the world to your religious doctrine against its will. Your religious freedom applies only to what YOU do; it does not apply to what you want to do to OTHER PEOPLE. In the latter case, religious freedom means that it's the other people's right not to be harassed by you, that takes precedence over what you might want. |
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area.
But if you want to complain about power and control, then maybe you should take a refresher course in American History. There was a time when a Black man couldn't marry a White woman; when a Black man couldn't own property; when a Black man's life was worthless. There was a time in America when anti-Communist hysteria brought about witch hunts and blacklists. There was a time, before World War II, when Fascism was ascendent and highly popular here. There was a time when huge monopolies and robber barons terrorized and repressed ordinary Americans, precisely because the government didn't have enough power to stop them. There was a time when the government tried to prohibit alcohol, and brought about the rise of organized crime mobs which reverberate to this day. There was a time when there used to be a draft, and you could be conscripted and forced to fight in a war against your will.
If you think things are bad now, you should take a look at the past and be thankful.
Then just as now good people rise up to remove evils from our land. The only differences, the major evils now are abortion and homosexuality. These two are trying to tear down the value and respect for life. All of our freedoms are based on the respect for life.
I am sorry you do not see defense of your country as a requirement of freedom.
QUOTE
FYI, most of the Founding Fathers viewed the Anglican and the Catholic Church as a source of great evil, and were deeply suspicious of any organized religion in general. As far as "perverting" society, I fail to see how an end to ongoing injustice and institutionalized discrimination would harm anyone. Gayness is not a disease or an ideology; it doesn't spread or damage anything. What perverts our society more than anything, is the continuing insistence that some of us should be more free, or more equal, than others.
I see you knowledge in history is less then your knowledge of morals and natural law.
You have many distorted views. Any person may marry any other person that qualifies under the definition of marriage. This is the same as every person may drive if they meet the qualifications.
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner. This would be a great tax break for many people. It would eliminate most estate taxes even if Congress does not do so.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| FYI, most of the Founding Fathers viewed the Anglican and the Catholic Church as a source of great evil, and were deeply suspicious of any organized religion in general. As far as "perverting" society, I fail to see how an end to ongoing injustice and institutionalized discrimination would harm anyone. Gayness is not a disease or an ideology; it doesn't spread or damage anything. What perverts our society more than anything, is the continuing insistence that some of us should be more free, or more equal, than others. |
I see you knowledge in history is less then your knowledge of morals and natural law.
You have many distorted views. Any person may marry any other person that qualifies under the definition of marriage. This is the same as every person may drive if they meet the qualifications.
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner. This would be a great tax break for many people. It would eliminate most estate taxes even if Congress does not do so.
As for personal torment, you should be happy to know that it's due mostly to people like you, who seek to make the lives of homosexuals as miserable as possible. I hope you're pleased with your "compassionate" accomplishments.
It is not compassionate to enable a bad situation and prolong pain. Moral pain can only be helped with moral solutions. Saying wrong is right only makes it worse.
Pink Elephant
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God.
Sex is one of the most important gifts that God has given to man. It is through the loving sexual relationship of man and woman and in union with God, that new eternal life is created. This gift is reserved for man and man alone. I realize it is impossible for you to understand any concept that puts man in any special condition or any relation with the Creator of all things. Your atheism limits your ability to understand the nature of God’s creation and the laws and working of the universe.
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God.
Sex is one of the most important gifts that God has given to man. It is through the loving sexual relationship of man and woman and in union with God, that new eternal life is created. This gift is reserved for man and man alone. I realize it is impossible for you to understand any concept that puts man in any special condition or any relation with the Creator of all things. Your atheism limits your ability to understand the nature of God’s creation and the laws and working of the universe.
Incidentally, isn't your church terribly fond of celibacy? What about all those monks who deliberately abstain from any form of sexual relationship whatsover; aren't they breaking the commandment to "go forth and multiply", not to mention going against the natural order of things? What about the medieval practice of castration, then? You want to talk about evil??
I can see that your lack of knowledge and understanding of morals would make this action confusing for you. In all moral consideration, there is greater and less good and greater and lesser evil. It is immoral to take you own life but it is of greater good to give your life for another.
Not all things that are or were done in the name of the Church are of the Church. Were all the things done under communist atheism the result of atheism. Does atheism require you to kill millions? Yes I do want to talk about evil.
QUOTE
Typical Catholicism... Sex is evil, happiness is evil, mutually loving relationships are evil; we'd rather have homosexuals alone and miserable, than together and happy.
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God.
Sex is one of the most important gifts that God has given to man. It is through the loving sexual relationship of man and woman and in union with God, that new eternal life is created. This gift is reserved for man and man alone. I realize it is impossible for you to understand any concept that puts man in any special condition or any relation with the Creator of all things. Your atheism limits your ability to understand the nature of God’s creation and the laws and working of the universe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Typical Catholicism... Sex is evil, happiness is evil, mutually loving relationships are evil; we'd rather have homosexuals alone and miserable, than together and happy. |
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God.
Sex is one of the most important gifts that God has given to man. It is through the loving sexual relationship of man and woman and in union with God, that new eternal life is created. This gift is reserved for man and man alone. I realize it is impossible for you to understand any concept that puts man in any special condition or any relation with the Creator of all things. Your atheism limits your ability to understand the nature of God’s creation and the laws and working of the universe.
Incidentally, isn't your church terribly fond of celibacy? What about all those monks who deliberately abstain from any form of sexual relationship whatsover; aren't they breaking the commandment to "go forth and multiply", not to mention going against the natural order of things? What about the medieval practice of castration, then? You want to talk about evil??
I can see that your lack of knowledge and understanding of morals would make this action confusing for you. In all moral consideration, there is greater and less good and greater and lesser evil. It is immoral to take you own life but it is of greater good to give your life for another.
Not all things that are or were done in the name of the Church are of the Church. Were all the things done under communist atheism the result of atheism. Does atheism require you to kill millions? Yes I do want to talk about evil.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 26 2007, 04:27 AM)
Yeah that's not the only direct contradiction in the Bible, there are plenty more. No wonder there are so many versions of Christianity and so much explaining needed for OT inconsistancies.
This just points at your ignorance and bigotry towards religion, and especially catholocism.
Most christians believe that the New Testament brings a new message from JC himself, and that it takes precedence over the Old Testament.
Catholic Doctrine takes the position that the Bible itself is not the only repository of religious standards and beliefs, it is taken with handed down tradition and implied translations and meanings dating several thousand years old, and further interpreted and explained by our clergy.
If you want to find reason to find fault with religion, there are many and manifold ways and means to do exactly that. We do not ask that you share our beliefs, just respect our right to hold them, as we must respect yours.
If you have problems or issues with the catholic religion, I would be happy to hear specifics, you might be surprised as to what the actual faith is all about.
This just points at your ignorance and bigotry towards religion, and especially catholocism.
Most christians believe that the New Testament brings a new message from JC himself, and that it takes precedence over the Old Testament.
Catholic Doctrine takes the position that the Bible itself is not the only repository of religious standards and beliefs, it is taken with handed down tradition and implied translations and meanings dating several thousand years old, and further interpreted and explained by our clergy.
If you want to find reason to find fault with religion, there are many and manifold ways and means to do exactly that. We do not ask that you share our beliefs, just respect our right to hold them, as we must respect yours.
If you have problems or issues with the catholic religion, I would be happy to hear specifics, you might be surprised as to what the actual faith is all about.
Adoucette
Been there; done that.
If you're only concerned about sex, I have no interest in insuring anyone's right to anonymous, promiscuous sex without social, political or legal consequences whether they are gay, straight or perverse.
Been there; done that.
If you're only concerned about sex, I have no interest in insuring anyone's right to anonymous, promiscuous sex without social, political or legal consequences whether they are gay, straight or perverse.
You say its "just a preference", so
What would it take to make you prefer the same sex?
I propose that many people fall somewhere in between same and opposite attraction.
But what's the big deal about attraction? Do you fall into bed with every one you're attracted to?
Are you talking about love?
Perhaps you were one of those fortunate souls who found mutual eternal bliss with the first girl (or boy) who caught your fancy.
If so, you are in a microscopic minority. If you're like most of us, you had to swallow your disappointment dozens or hundreds of times when you had crushes on a teacher; a friend's parent's (or a parent's friend); a person who thought you were ugly and stupid (despite your obvious good looks, brilliance and personality to match); a charming stranger; someone too rich, too smart, or too busy to look in your direction longer than it took to reject your respectful advances; or the ones who dumped you after the third date or third year.
There are many people who don't partner at all, ever, and live pretty good lives. There are even a few who partner and who live miserable lives. :-)
What about someone who was attracted to one willing person of the same sex in high school, and felt pressured to declare for homosexuality? How many people dabble for a while, and then switch?
There are homosexuals who are scared of the born-gay-gene theory. If it's proven, then will parents try to abort gay babies?
There are lots of questions. This debate is too young to declare.
Just so you know, I'm not a fanatic. I'm just trying to examine some social and political arguments with an open mind, after having accepted most left-of-center positions without question for a very long time.
QUOTE
Forget the wife.
What would it take to make YOU be attracted to and want to have sex with your BEST FRIEND?
What would it take to make YOU be attracted to and want to have sex with your BEST FRIEND?
Been there; done that.
If you're only concerned about sex, I have no interest in insuring anyone's right to anonymous, promiscuous sex without social, political or legal consequences whether they are gay, straight or perverse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Forget the wife. What would it take to make YOU be attracted to and want to have sex with your BEST FRIEND? |
Been there; done that.
If you're only concerned about sex, I have no interest in insuring anyone's right to anonymous, promiscuous sex without social, political or legal consequences whether they are gay, straight or perverse.
You say its "just a preference", so
What would it take to make you prefer the same sex?
I propose that many people fall somewhere in between same and opposite attraction.
But what's the big deal about attraction? Do you fall into bed with every one you're attracted to?
Are you talking about love?
Perhaps you were one of those fortunate souls who found mutual eternal bliss with the first girl (or boy) who caught your fancy.
If so, you are in a microscopic minority. If you're like most of us, you had to swallow your disappointment dozens or hundreds of times when you had crushes on a teacher; a friend's parent's (or a parent's friend); a person who thought you were ugly and stupid (despite your obvious good looks, brilliance and personality to match); a charming stranger; someone too rich, too smart, or too busy to look in your direction longer than it took to reject your respectful advances; or the ones who dumped you after the third date or third year.
There are many people who don't partner at all, ever, and live pretty good lives. There are even a few who partner and who live miserable lives. :-)
What about someone who was attracted to one willing person of the same sex in high school, and felt pressured to declare for homosexuality? How many people dabble for a while, and then switch?
There are homosexuals who are scared of the born-gay-gene theory. If it's proven, then will parents try to abort gay babies?
There are lots of questions. This debate is too young to declare.
Just so you know, I'm not a fanatic. I'm just trying to examine some social and political arguments with an open mind, after having accepted most left-of-center positions without question for a very long time.
QUOTE (TaddPeake+Aug 26 2007, 08:22 AM)
Been there; done that.
You had intercourse with your best friend of the same sex?
Were you were an adult when this occurred?
Not MANY as a percent of the population.
Now I understand what you mean by "what's the big deal about attraction".
Simple, its the FIRST step in a greater attraction.
But, you have NO CONTROL over who you are attracted to.
It can even be tested (essentially using an apparatus similar to a lie detector)
The MAJORITY of people are ONLY attracted to the opposite sex.
A small minority of people are attracted to the same sex.
Arthur
You had intercourse with your best friend of the same sex?
Were you were an adult when this occurred?
QUOTE
I propose that many people fall somewhere in between same and opposite attraction.
Not MANY as a percent of the population.
Now I understand what you mean by "what's the big deal about attraction".
Simple, its the FIRST step in a greater attraction.
But, you have NO CONTROL over who you are attracted to.
It can even be tested (essentially using an apparatus similar to a lie detector)
The MAJORITY of people are ONLY attracted to the opposite sex.
A small minority of people are attracted to the same sex.
Arthur
QUOTE (Pink Elephant+Aug 24 2007, 11:51 PM)
it's a personality trait, like intelligence, shyness, or athletic aptitude for example.
Intelligence, shyness and athletic aptitude are choices?
yes actually they are if you choose to excel at them then you will excel.
As to MARRIAGE, in every christian and most faiths around the world, that term has a very specific meaning and definition that strictly refers to the union of a man and a woman
...
You can no more insist that religions reform their beliefs than they insist you conform to theirs.
...
Unfortunately for your viewpoint, MOST americans practice some form of christianity which steadfastly believes it is not equal. So there will be disagreement on rights for adoption, recognition and rights for members of the union to be a "family" and raise children.
Whether or not you agree, surely you must be able to understand that others may disagree and have every right to do so?
But we aren't discussing religious definitions. We are discussion LAW, which must be applied to all members of society equally, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof.)
Therefore the opinions of any particular religion (or even a vastly predominant group of religions, or even all religions put together) have no relevance in a nation where there is supposed to be FREEDOM of religion.
The freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were established precisely with the purpose of protecting social minorities from the tyranny of the majority. To now hear religious advocates complain that civil rights infringe upon their hegemonic ambitions, is both sad and horrible at the same time.
So what MOST americans need to do, is study civics and American History, and to find out what their own country is ACTUALLY all about!
So if you are arguing for homosexual unions to be on equal terms with traditional marriage you are missing the point. They never have been and never will be. If you force the term MARRIAGE and insist that the religious sacrament be equal regardless of religious beliefs, you will be enacting laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution.
First of all, I'm arguing for legal equivalence. That is, our society has built up a very large codex of laws around marriage. These (civil) laws have nothing to do with any religion, because their origin is in legislation rather than any alleged revelation.
Secondly, there is no such thing as "traditional marriage". There are people living here with all kinds of cultural backgrounds. That includes (for example) people whose marriages were arranged by their parents when they were prepubescent children, and who had no say in the matter whatsoever. There are people whose cultures had endorsed and practiced polygamy. European royalty had been famous for its practice of incest. There are cultures in the world where homosexuality is actually accepted as part of the tradition; where the homosexuals are actually granted their own, special spiritual status and are even revered somewhat. Like the title of this thread says, there have been cultures where homosexuality (and even paedophilia) had been accepted traditional practices. Thus, any argument from tradition in this matter is simply void for lack of self-consistency.
First of all, I'm arguing for legal equivalence. That is, our society has built up a very large codex of laws around marriage. These (civil) laws have nothing to do with any religion, because their origin is in legislation rather than any alleged revelation.
Secondly, there is no such thing as "traditional marriage". There are people living here with all kinds of cultural backgrounds. That includes (for example) people whose marriages were arranged by their parents when they were prepubescent children, and who had no say in the matter whatsoever. There are people whose cultures had endorsed and practiced polygamy. European royalty had been famous for its practice of incest. There are cultures in the world where homosexuality is actually accepted as part of the tradition; where the homosexuals are actually granted their own, special spiritual status and are even revered somewhat. Like the title of this thread says, there have been cultures where homosexuality (and even paedophilia) had been accepted traditional practices. Thus, any argument from tradition in this matter is simply void for lack of self-consistency.
I will tell you this. The crafting of your "Civil Union" laws will need be VERY specific however, lest serious and undesirable consequences to our society proceed from it.
For instance. How do you determine WHO can be recognized? Regardless of sex perhaps, but HOW MANY per union (3, 4, a hundred). What about other traditional and religious beliefs such as Incest (immediate family members) or even of other species (animals) or even imaginary entities?
The same arguments you use are frequently used to support these other ideas as well. Do you support equal relevance for all of those?
This is the problem with government regulation of traditional institutions. The bottom line is that civic law must be just and fair to all. That's the overriding principle; so let's apply it to your scenarios:
Should polygamous unions be recognized? The answer is YES: but only if all signatories to the union are adults of sound judgement, and all wish to consummate that union of their own free will (without any coersion.) Would this cause "serious and undesirable consequences to our society"? Somehow, I suspect that not very many people will want to enter into such unions. Therefore, any consequences to society (whether serious or not) would be lost against the noise of the background.
Should incestual relationships be recognized? The answer is a qualified YES; the qualification is that only homosexual incest can be allowed, or else incest between assuredly infertile heterosexuals (where the assurance can take the form of either physiological infertility, or a legally binding agreement to use birth control and abort any accidental conceptions.) Incestuous reproduction leads to babies with severe genetic illnesses and/or birth defects, thereby creating victims (the babies) and it is therefore a kind of crime. Whenever victims are involved (even if they are only potential victims), the government is within its right and duty to step in and regulate.
Should unions with animals or imaginary entities be recognized? I think not: as such "parties" to the union would be incapable of understanding the legal implications, cannot be judged "adult" and "of sound mind", and therefore cannot be legal parties to any contract in the first place.
Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God...
You're free to believe that, of course. I do not, however. Sexual coupling between humans is not qualitatively any different than that between gorillas. It just so happens that we are predominantly monogamous (though much more so on the female side, with males overwhelmingly biased toward promiscuity.) Thus, the "institution" of marriage derives from our particular built-in biological preferences.
But regardless of what you or I believe, the question is how marriage should be defined in LAW. What you are utterly failing to understand, is that law must apply to both you and me equally. Can't you see that if the law reflects your religious bias, then this law is FORCING your religion onto me?? Similarly, if a law reflects a bias against your religion, then it is no good either. Therefore, LAWS must be neutral. We cannot legislate religion in a FREE society.
If we as a society set out to create a set of laws ranging from inheritance to tax code to powers of attorney, then these laws must apply to all people equally. These laws have NOTHING to do with religion; they are a matter of regulation and legislation.
In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
And what's your point? That by allowing gays to marry, we somehow would be undermining heterosexual marriage??? What, exactly, is your argument against making marriage more inclusive and equitable? And don't quote your scriptures at me, because we aren't discussing ecumenical matters; we are discussing CIVIC LAW.
And what's your point? That by allowing gays to marry, we somehow would be undermining heterosexual marriage??? What, exactly, is your argument against making marriage more inclusive and equitable? And don't quote your scriptures at me, because we aren't discussing ecumenical matters; we are discussing CIVIC LAW.
God being the source of all religion marriage is an establishment of Religion.
There you go again, spouting your beliefs as if they were facts. Religion is in fact a human artifact. It is an invention, a confabulation, a fairy tale designed to bring solace and comfort to individuals, prop up tribal leadership and imbue it with authority, as well as unite the tribe in times of trouble.
Marriage is ennobling and brings dignity to the relationship of men and woman. That dignity does not come from the word but the definition of marriage as established by God.
That's what it means to you, but it's not what it means to me. You'll just have to learn to accept that not every person in the world shares your assumptions and interpretations. In my view, it is love that's ennobling. It is sacrifice for the sake of another that brings dignity to a relationship. Dragging in imaginary entities and fairy tales only demeans and cheapens the whole thing, turning it into some kind of a game or a ritual.
That's what it means to you, but it's not what it means to me. You'll just have to learn to accept that not every person in the world shares your assumptions and interpretations. In my view, it is love that's ennobling. It is sacrifice for the sake of another that brings dignity to a relationship. Dragging in imaginary entities and fairy tales only demeans and cheapens the whole thing, turning it into some kind of a game or a ritual.
As an Atheist, that does not accept God and therefore the definition of marriage established by God you can not be married. You can make all the contracts you wish but it is not marriage.
Sorry bud, but the word "marriage" does not belong either to your church or even to your religion. Native Americans were getting married long before any of your memes ever reached their continent. As were the Pagans in Britain and Germany, long before there was ever such a thing as Judaism, never mind Christianity.
Ancient Egyptians had marriage; ancient Hindus had marriage; Australian aborigines had marriage. Marriage is a human institution, not a religious one. So stop pretending like it was invented by the Hebrews.
It is also true that most people with moral defects do not perform as well and are not able to advance in a company. This makes the issue self regulating.
In my experience, people who tend to advance in companies are not ones with fewer moral defects. Rather, they are the ones who are more adept at politics, have connections in high places, are more ruthless and opportunistic, and tend to care about their jobs more than they do about their families (if they even have any.)
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area.
Yeah, except with gay marriage you aren't engaging in free speech. You are engaging in COERCION through the sheer FORCE OF LAW. It's one thing to advocate against something in a public arena; it's altogether different to PROHIBIT that same thing by CODIFYING the prohibition into LAW.
Yeah, except with gay marriage you aren't engaging in free speech. You are engaging in COERCION through the sheer FORCE OF LAW. It's one thing to advocate against something in a public arena; it's altogether different to PROHIBIT that same thing by CODIFYING the prohibition into LAW.
The only differences, the major evils now are abortion and homosexuality. These two are trying to tear down the value and respect for life.
You must be joking. What about greed, gluttony, covetousness, selfishness? Are these not the deadliest of deadly sins in your faith, and are they not blossoming now more than ever??
And what could be more responsible for tearing down respect for life, than an out-of-control military-industrial cancer currently metastasizing all throughout our nation? Or the act of turning a collective blind eye to the slave labor that's stocking Walmart's shelves for our benefit?
FYI, homosexuality has ALWAYS been around. It's not a recent invention; it's as much a part of humanity as marriage.
And as for abortion, I fail to see how preventing the formation of an unwanted child diminishes respect for life. If you're one of those nuts who insist that "abortion is murder", my reply is simple: murder is an act that can only be perpetrated on a being with a human brain. In the first 4-5 months of pregnancy, fetuses have brains smaller than a rat's, and far less structurally complex. Unless you believe in soul magic (which I certainly don't) and further believe that souls are magically coupled to bodies at conception or in early gestation, there is simply no argument (i.e. no non-religious argument) for claiming that fetuses actually qualify as human beings (i.e. a body that's actually inhabited by a human-like awareness and mind) until very late into pregnancy. I'm sorry, but the Catholic principle that a single cell with full complement of human DNA qualifies as a human being even absent implantation into the uterus, not only cheapens the definition of humanity beyond anything science could have done, but is just blindingly ridiculous on its face.
I don't condone late-term abortion (except in cases of medical emergency), but then neither does our society as a whole, and late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. Compared to the elective mass-murder we as a society are causing half-way around the world; compared to the mass-murder we as a society choose to ignore in Africa; compared to the mass-death caused by preventable disease epidemics toward eradication of which we dedicate almost no effort next to our expenditures for the apparatus of war; compared to the severe (and in some cases irreversible) damage we are wreaking on our planet (and our progeny's future), I'd say abortion and homosexuality are hardly of any importance whatsoever. I can only conclude that your perceptions have clearly been warped and perverted by right-wing brainwashing, which incidentally is a not-uncommon phenomenon among the staunchly religious of any nation or faith.
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner.
Thank you. My point exactly.
Thank you. My point exactly.
This would be a great tax break for many people. It would eliminate most estate taxes even if Congress does not do so.
It would be a tax break only for the people who currently are not allowed to legally marry: that is, a tiny minority of the population. The vast majority of the population already enjoys massive tax breaks designed to benefit heterosexual couples.
Regardless, tax policy considerations are not a sound argument against equality of treatment under the law.
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God.
Again, you lack any understanding of my lack of belief in your god. Your opinions are subjective and based in your religion. They do not apply to me, or to anyone else who does not share your religious view. And they cannot be forced upon me or anyone else through legislative coersion.
Again, you lack any understanding of my lack of belief in your god. Your opinions are subjective and based in your religion. They do not apply to me, or to anyone else who does not share your religious view. And they cannot be forced upon me or anyone else through legislative coersion.
Your atheism limits your ability to understand the nature of God’s creation and the laws and working of the universe.
Your religion blinds you to the wider world that lies outside of its limited scope. And by the way, blindly believing in fairy tales does not bring understanding of the universe. If anything, it is an excellent training in double-speak and double-think.
It is immoral to take you own life but it is of greater good to give your life for another.
And yet you argue that while this sentiment applies to monks, when one gay man (or woman) gives their life to another, it's a great "moral crime".
You are in total denial of the facts of history and society. Not only are you trying to redefine marriage but also you are in denial of historical facts.
Oh yeah? Let's see if YOU can acknowledge the following facts of history and society:
1) The vast majority of the world is not Catholic
2) About 45% of the world isn't even Christian, Jewish, or Muslim (i.e. doesn't derive its religion from any Abrahamic tradition): http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
3) There existed societies and religions all over the world, long before there was such a thing as Judaism
4) The Earth is NOT 6000 years old, but in fact is 4.5 billion years old, and the human species has existed in its modern form for at least 100,000 years
In Judaism, marriage is viewed...
Who cares what it's called in Judaism, other than people who actually believe in Judaism? I'll no sooner believe in Judaism's definition, than I will believe in a definition given (for example) by the Cherokee Indians. Your religion has no privileged place above other religions. And in a FREE society, no law can be derived or justified in terms of any given religion -- including yours.
Who cares what it's called in Judaism, other than people who actually believe in Judaism? I'll no sooner believe in Judaism's definition, than I will believe in a definition given (for example) by the Cherokee Indians. Your religion has no privileged place above other religions. And in a FREE society, no law can be derived or justified in terms of any given religion -- including yours.
This is the oldest definition of marriage and goes back to Adam and Eve. There is no other reference older then this. The Catholic definition is the same only with greater understanding of marriage in relationship to God.
There's no such thing as Adam and Eve; they are a myth. Humans weren't created; our species evolved as did all the other species on Earth. There was never any clear and abrupt transition from "non-human" to "human"; the modern humans are a result of, on average, a gradual morphing from preceding forms.
Stop trying to distort definitions, history, law and the constitution in support of a basic immoral relationship of homosexuality.
It is you who are distorting history, definitions, law, and the constitution. Our nation was NOT founded on the Bible. Indeed, many of our most prominent founding fathers were Deists and/or Freemasons, found the Bible abhorrent, and considered organized religion a source of evil.
The central tenet in the founding of our nation, is FREEDOM from any sort of oppression. You are trying to impose your Catholic doctrine upon the rest of us, who are non-Catholics, through the force of law. That is not freedom of religion; it is RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Of course, your church has a very long history of religious oppression, so I'm not at all surprised at its latest antics.
It is you who are distorting history, definitions, law, and the constitution. Our nation was NOT founded on the Bible. Indeed, many of our most prominent founding fathers were Deists and/or Freemasons, found the Bible abhorrent, and considered organized religion a source of evil.
The central tenet in the founding of our nation, is FREEDOM from any sort of oppression. You are trying to impose your Catholic doctrine upon the rest of us, who are non-Catholics, through the force of law. That is not freedom of religion; it is RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Of course, your church has a very long history of religious oppression, so I'm not at all surprised at its latest antics.
Keep your suffering to yourself and away from our great country of God. In God we trust.
Here's a few more facts of history and society for you:
FYI: "In God we trust" was added to U.S. currency in 1861, during the Civil War. It has no origin in the founding of our Republic. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-we-trust.shtml
Another FYI: "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 during the anti-Communist hysteria; the original Pledge was invented in 1892 and, despite being authored by a Christian minister, contained no references to God. Neither has any origin in the founding of our Republic. http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
And one more: the "Creator" referenced in the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Judeo-Christian concept, but a Deist term. That's why the word "God" wasn't the one used; the word "Creator" in Deism means something quite different from the Christian notion of God. For more on Deism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
And finally: nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is God, or Christianity, or the Bible, mentioned -- NOT EVEN ONCE. This is deliberate! In the course of the Constitutional Convention some delegates wanted to ground the Constitution in Christianity and the Bible; this approach was soundly rejected by the Founding Fathers, who wanted to establish a nation based on Reason and Enlightenment.
What we have seen over the last couple of centuries, is a gradual encroachment of religious insitutions upon the very foundations of our originally free nation. Religious fundamentalists have worked very hard, and are still working hard, to negate and destroy the original ideas of America founded in egalitarianism and freedom of conscience, and replace them with a Theocracy where religious law is turned into civic law. Any true patriot would know this history, and would dedicate themselves to opposing these forces of destruction.
I like this line of logic.
Some like to paint. tlocity, should we acid wash the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 25 2007, 01:17 AM)
Personality traits are a choice.
Intelligence, shyness and athletic aptitude are choices?
Intelligence, shyness and athletic aptitude are choices?
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 26 2007, 01:13 PM)
You had intercourse with your best friend of the same sex?
Were you were an adult when this occurred?
Not MANY as a percent of the population.
Now I understand what you mean by "what's the big deal about attraction".
Simple, its the FIRST step in a greater attraction.
But, you have NO CONTROL over who you are attracted to.
It can even be tested (essentially using an apparatus similar to a lie detector)
The MAJORITY of people are ONLY attracted to the opposite sex.
A small minority of people are attracted to the same sex.
Arthur
Your first question was about desire, which I answered. For the sake of this discussion, knowing more about me probably isn't necessary.
Interesting idea about a device to prove gayness or not. Who would want to be tested? Maybe a home kit for guaranteed confidentiality.
Without reliable studies (or tests) it's only a guessing game to know what percent have been attracted to others of the same sex for some period without deciding once and for all that they are gay.
How do bisexuals color the "choice/no choice" argument?
How does a homosexual cope who's hopelessly in love with a heterosexual?
If we knew for certain that gayness was hereditary, would gay people want to have biologically gay children?
Were you were an adult when this occurred?
Not MANY as a percent of the population.
Now I understand what you mean by "what's the big deal about attraction".
Simple, its the FIRST step in a greater attraction.
But, you have NO CONTROL over who you are attracted to.
It can even be tested (essentially using an apparatus similar to a lie detector)
The MAJORITY of people are ONLY attracted to the opposite sex.
A small minority of people are attracted to the same sex.
Arthur
Your first question was about desire, which I answered. For the sake of this discussion, knowing more about me probably isn't necessary.
Interesting idea about a device to prove gayness or not. Who would want to be tested? Maybe a home kit for guaranteed confidentiality.
Without reliable studies (or tests) it's only a guessing game to know what percent have been attracted to others of the same sex for some period without deciding once and for all that they are gay.
How do bisexuals color the "choice/no choice" argument?
How does a homosexual cope who's hopelessly in love with a heterosexual?
If we knew for certain that gayness was hereditary, would gay people want to have biologically gay children?
Let me set the record straight too. If custody is given of one of the people I was referring to that I did help out with this horrible happenstance in their lives I will personally take their father off the earth for this. So don't get me mixed up either. That is something that is wrong end of discussion. That little boy ever has to see his dad again after him doing this to him and trying to murder him and his step-sister I won't be the only one to take care of that one. That's the first time I ever spoke to anyone about what happened that day the cops beat my dad and actually started thinking about that my self so let everyone take that to the bank and yeah you Alpha and you Doan can take that *** to heart. End of discussion on that.
QUOTE (gmilam+Aug 26 2007, 02:26 PM)
Intelligence, shyness and athletic aptitude are choices?
yes actually they are if you choose to excel at them then you will excel.
The greeks prefered fruit for soldiers?
That doesn't sound right. I think its a lie.
That doesn't sound right. I think its a lie.
gmilam
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5070400845.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=EBWgBAkEq...fPbCaA#PPA51,M1
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older.../200112305.html
All moral actions are choices. Have you never noticed that you have complete freewill in matters of morals. Character is the ability to make moral choices in spite of physical limitations.
Genes govern physical makeup not morality. Actions changes genetic makeup over time. This is basic evolution. It is now being discovered that these changes take place much faster then previously thought. This can easily be see in children of older parents. Recent genetic studies find that genes that are the same between twins at birth are greatly changed with time. The ability to test genes has resulted in this discovery.
It has also been found that chemistry does not determine thinking but thinking produces changers in chemistry of the body. These discoveries are being played down in the world of science controlled by atheistic thought. Our whole society is now based on a “its not my fault” thinking. If you don’t think so, just take a look at our legal system. Look at society. If you are poor, it is because someone or something is keeping you poor. If you are not educated, it is because you could no go to the best schools. If you murder someone, it is because you were disadvantaged.
Morals and character to live by those moral is the only thing that works.
QUOTE
Intelligence, shyness and athletic aptitude are choices?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5070400845.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=EBWgBAkEq...fPbCaA#PPA51,M1
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older.../200112305.html
All moral actions are choices. Have you never noticed that you have complete freewill in matters of morals. Character is the ability to make moral choices in spite of physical limitations.
Genes govern physical makeup not morality. Actions changes genetic makeup over time. This is basic evolution. It is now being discovered that these changes take place much faster then previously thought. This can easily be see in children of older parents. Recent genetic studies find that genes that are the same between twins at birth are greatly changed with time. The ability to test genes has resulted in this discovery.
It has also been found that chemistry does not determine thinking but thinking produces changers in chemistry of the body. These discoveries are being played down in the world of science controlled by atheistic thought. Our whole society is now based on a “its not my fault” thinking. If you don’t think so, just take a look at our legal system. Look at society. If you are poor, it is because someone or something is keeping you poor. If you are not educated, it is because you could no go to the best schools. If you murder someone, it is because you were disadvantaged.
Morals and character to live by those moral is the only thing that works.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 26 2007, 04:32 PM)
Actions changes genetic makeup over time. This is basic evolution.
NO, this is NOT basic evolution.
This is old fashion Lemarkian BS.
You don't believe me then provide PROOF of ANY of your rediculous assertions.
Arthur
NO, this is NOT basic evolution.
This is old fashion Lemarkian BS.
You don't believe me then provide PROOF of ANY of your rediculous assertions.
Arthur
QUOTE (deadbeat+Aug 26 2007, 03:46 AM)
As to MARRIAGE, in every christian and most faiths around the world, that term has a very specific meaning and definition that strictly refers to the union of a man and a woman
...
You can no more insist that religions reform their beliefs than they insist you conform to theirs.
...
Unfortunately for your viewpoint, MOST americans practice some form of christianity which steadfastly believes it is not equal. So there will be disagreement on rights for adoption, recognition and rights for members of the union to be a "family" and raise children.
Whether or not you agree, surely you must be able to understand that others may disagree and have every right to do so?
But we aren't discussing religious definitions. We are discussion LAW, which must be applied to all members of society equally, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof.)
Therefore the opinions of any particular religion (or even a vastly predominant group of religions, or even all religions put together) have no relevance in a nation where there is supposed to be FREEDOM of religion.
The freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were established precisely with the purpose of protecting social minorities from the tyranny of the majority. To now hear religious advocates complain that civil rights infringe upon their hegemonic ambitions, is both sad and horrible at the same time.
So what MOST americans need to do, is study civics and American History, and to find out what their own country is ACTUALLY all about!
QUOTE
So if you are arguing for homosexual unions to be on equal terms with traditional marriage you are missing the point. They never have been and never will be. If you force the term MARRIAGE and insist that the religious sacrament be equal regardless of religious beliefs, you will be enacting laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution.
First of all, I'm arguing for legal equivalence. That is, our society has built up a very large codex of laws around marriage. These (civil) laws have nothing to do with any religion, because their origin is in legislation rather than any alleged revelation.
Secondly, there is no such thing as "traditional marriage". There are people living here with all kinds of cultural backgrounds. That includes (for example) people whose marriages were arranged by their parents when they were prepubescent children, and who had no say in the matter whatsoever. There are people whose cultures had endorsed and practiced polygamy. European royalty had been famous for its practice of incest. There are cultures in the world where homosexuality is actually accepted as part of the tradition; where the homosexuals are actually granted their own, special spiritual status and are even revered somewhat. Like the title of this thread says, there have been cultures where homosexuality (and even paedophilia) had been accepted traditional practices. Thus, any argument from tradition in this matter is simply void for lack of self-consistency.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
So if you are arguing for homosexual unions to be on equal terms with traditional marriage you are missing the point. They never have been and never will be. If you force the term MARRIAGE and insist that the religious sacrament be equal regardless of religious beliefs, you will be enacting laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution. |
First of all, I'm arguing for legal equivalence. That is, our society has built up a very large codex of laws around marriage. These (civil) laws have nothing to do with any religion, because their origin is in legislation rather than any alleged revelation.
Secondly, there is no such thing as "traditional marriage". There are people living here with all kinds of cultural backgrounds. That includes (for example) people whose marriages were arranged by their parents when they were prepubescent children, and who had no say in the matter whatsoever. There are people whose cultures had endorsed and practiced polygamy. European royalty had been famous for its practice of incest. There are cultures in the world where homosexuality is actually accepted as part of the tradition; where the homosexuals are actually granted their own, special spiritual status and are even revered somewhat. Like the title of this thread says, there have been cultures where homosexuality (and even paedophilia) had been accepted traditional practices. Thus, any argument from tradition in this matter is simply void for lack of self-consistency.
I will tell you this. The crafting of your "Civil Union" laws will need be VERY specific however, lest serious and undesirable consequences to our society proceed from it.
For instance. How do you determine WHO can be recognized? Regardless of sex perhaps, but HOW MANY per union (3, 4, a hundred). What about other traditional and religious beliefs such as Incest (immediate family members) or even of other species (animals) or even imaginary entities?
The same arguments you use are frequently used to support these other ideas as well. Do you support equal relevance for all of those?
This is the problem with government regulation of traditional institutions. The bottom line is that civic law must be just and fair to all. That's the overriding principle; so let's apply it to your scenarios:
Should polygamous unions be recognized? The answer is YES: but only if all signatories to the union are adults of sound judgement, and all wish to consummate that union of their own free will (without any coersion.) Would this cause "serious and undesirable consequences to our society"? Somehow, I suspect that not very many people will want to enter into such unions. Therefore, any consequences to society (whether serious or not) would be lost against the noise of the background.
Should incestual relationships be recognized? The answer is a qualified YES; the qualification is that only homosexual incest can be allowed, or else incest between assuredly infertile heterosexuals (where the assurance can take the form of either physiological infertility, or a legally binding agreement to use birth control and abort any accidental conceptions.) Incestuous reproduction leads to babies with severe genetic illnesses and/or birth defects, thereby creating victims (the babies) and it is therefore a kind of crime. Whenever victims are involved (even if they are only potential victims), the government is within its right and duty to step in and regulate.
Should unions with animals or imaginary entities be recognized? I think not: as such "parties" to the union would be incapable of understanding the legal implications, cannot be judged "adult" and "of sound mind", and therefore cannot be legal parties to any contract in the first place.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 26 2007, 03:56 AM)
Certainly that has a LOT to do with it.
But even if you were treated identically, its still a less attractive option. Besides the legal shiit, the sexual parts just don't fit as well together and you can't have any kids of your own.
I guarantee you, that if that couple had a "fairy godmother" that could instantly turn the one partner into a woman and at the same time change the other's sexual preference to be for females, they would take that change in a heartbeat.
Well, I'll grant you that inability to have kids can indeed be a difficult thing to live with. But then again, there are plenty of infertile heterosexual couples; inability to have your own biological kids doesn't prevent you from adopting some if you wanted to "have" some...
Regarding the sexual parts, yes of course. Though this particular problem is far more severe for males than for females.
It's interesting that most discussion of homosexuality tends to focus on gays, while side-stepping lesbians; probably it's for two reasons: first, homophobes are predominantly male, and second, the particular anatomical frustration in male-on-male sex is far more emotionally disturbing to the heterosexuals, than the mechanics of female-on-female sex (of course, with homophobes being predominantly male, lesbian sex is far from disturbing to them... 
)
As far as changing sexual physiology, I doubt it. People who have true gender dismorphic disorders, usually opt for sex change to begin with. There are plenty of gays who are perfectly comfortable with their own bodies, and wouldn't want to change a thing about themselves. It is not necessary for a gay couple to differentiate themselves along the submissive/dominating lines; it can actually be (and often is) a coupling of equals.
Bottom line is, homosexual unions need not be miserable in any way whatsoever. If there is misery involved, it is usually either the normal misery of marriage (which heterosexuals are quite familiar with
), or misery caused by bigots and religious crusaders who insist on chronically harassing the couple.
But even if you were treated identically, its still a less attractive option. Besides the legal shiit, the sexual parts just don't fit as well together and you can't have any kids of your own.
I guarantee you, that if that couple had a "fairy godmother" that could instantly turn the one partner into a woman and at the same time change the other's sexual preference to be for females, they would take that change in a heartbeat.
Well, I'll grant you that inability to have kids can indeed be a difficult thing to live with. But then again, there are plenty of infertile heterosexual couples; inability to have your own biological kids doesn't prevent you from adopting some if you wanted to "have" some...
Regarding the sexual parts, yes of course. Though this particular problem is far more severe for males than for females.
It's interesting that most discussion of homosexuality tends to focus on gays, while side-stepping lesbians; probably it's for two reasons: first, homophobes are predominantly male, and second, the particular anatomical frustration in male-on-male sex is far more emotionally disturbing to the heterosexuals, than the mechanics of female-on-female sex (of course, with homophobes being predominantly male, lesbian sex is far from disturbing to them... )As far as changing sexual physiology, I doubt it. People who have true gender dismorphic disorders, usually opt for sex change to begin with. There are plenty of gays who are perfectly comfortable with their own bodies, and wouldn't want to change a thing about themselves. It is not necessary for a gay couple to differentiate themselves along the submissive/dominating lines; it can actually be (and often is) a coupling of equals.
Bottom line is, homosexual unions need not be miserable in any way whatsoever. If there is misery involved, it is usually either the normal misery of marriage (which heterosexuals are quite familiar with
), or misery caused by bigots and religious crusaders who insist on chronically harassing the couple.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 26 2007, 08:23 AM)
Marriage, whose nature and purposes are established by God...
You're free to believe that, of course. I do not, however. Sexual coupling between humans is not qualitatively any different than that between gorillas. It just so happens that we are predominantly monogamous (though much more so on the female side, with males overwhelmingly biased toward promiscuity.) Thus, the "institution" of marriage derives from our particular built-in biological preferences.
But regardless of what you or I believe, the question is how marriage should be defined in LAW. What you are utterly failing to understand, is that law must apply to both you and me equally. Can't you see that if the law reflects your religious bias, then this law is FORCING your religion onto me?? Similarly, if a law reflects a bias against your religion, then it is no good either. Therefore, LAWS must be neutral. We cannot legislate religion in a FREE society.
If we as a society set out to create a set of laws ranging from inheritance to tax code to powers of attorney, then these laws must apply to all people equally. These laws have NOTHING to do with religion; they are a matter of regulation and legislation.
QUOTE
In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children.
And what's your point? That by allowing gays to marry, we somehow would be undermining heterosexual marriage??? What, exactly, is your argument against making marriage more inclusive and equitable? And don't quote your scriptures at me, because we aren't discussing ecumenical matters; we are discussing CIVIC LAW.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In a manner unlike any other relationship, marriage makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the common good of society, especially through the procreation and education of children. |
And what's your point? That by allowing gays to marry, we somehow would be undermining heterosexual marriage??? What, exactly, is your argument against making marriage more inclusive and equitable? And don't quote your scriptures at me, because we aren't discussing ecumenical matters; we are discussing CIVIC LAW.
God being the source of all religion marriage is an establishment of Religion.
There you go again, spouting your beliefs as if they were facts. Religion is in fact a human artifact. It is an invention, a confabulation, a fairy tale designed to bring solace and comfort to individuals, prop up tribal leadership and imbue it with authority, as well as unite the tribe in times of trouble.
QUOTE
Marriage is ennobling and brings dignity to the relationship of men and woman. That dignity does not come from the word but the definition of marriage as established by God.
That's what it means to you, but it's not what it means to me. You'll just have to learn to accept that not every person in the world shares your assumptions and interpretations. In my view, it is love that's ennobling. It is sacrifice for the sake of another that brings dignity to a relationship. Dragging in imaginary entities and fairy tales only demeans and cheapens the whole thing, turning it into some kind of a game or a ritual.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Marriage is ennobling and brings dignity to the relationship of men and woman. That dignity does not come from the word but the definition of marriage as established by God. |
That's what it means to you, but it's not what it means to me. You'll just have to learn to accept that not every person in the world shares your assumptions and interpretations. In my view, it is love that's ennobling. It is sacrifice for the sake of another that brings dignity to a relationship. Dragging in imaginary entities and fairy tales only demeans and cheapens the whole thing, turning it into some kind of a game or a ritual.
As an Atheist, that does not accept God and therefore the definition of marriage established by God you can not be married. You can make all the contracts you wish but it is not marriage.
Sorry bud, but the word "marriage" does not belong either to your church or even to your religion. Native Americans were getting married long before any of your memes ever reached their continent. As were the Pagans in Britain and Germany, long before there was ever such a thing as Judaism, never mind Christianity.
Ancient Egyptians had marriage; ancient Hindus had marriage; Australian aborigines had marriage. Marriage is a human institution, not a religious one. So stop pretending like it was invented by the Hebrews.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 26 2007, 8:44 AM)
It is also true that most people with moral defects do not perform as well and are not able to advance in a company. This makes the issue self regulating.
In my experience, people who tend to advance in companies are not ones with fewer moral defects. Rather, they are the ones who are more adept at politics, have connections in high places, are more ruthless and opportunistic, and tend to care about their jobs more than they do about their families (if they even have any.)
QUOTE
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area.
Yeah, except with gay marriage you aren't engaging in free speech. You are engaging in COERCION through the sheer FORCE OF LAW. It's one thing to advocate against something in a public arena; it's altogether different to PROHIBIT that same thing by CODIFYING the prohibition into LAW.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Religious freedom does include the ability to bend other to God not against their will but with a change of that will. Freedom of speech works very well in that area. |
Yeah, except with gay marriage you aren't engaging in free speech. You are engaging in COERCION through the sheer FORCE OF LAW. It's one thing to advocate against something in a public arena; it's altogether different to PROHIBIT that same thing by CODIFYING the prohibition into LAW.
The only differences, the major evils now are abortion and homosexuality. These two are trying to tear down the value and respect for life.
You must be joking. What about greed, gluttony, covetousness, selfishness? Are these not the deadliest of deadly sins in your faith, and are they not blossoming now more than ever??
And what could be more responsible for tearing down respect for life, than an out-of-control military-industrial cancer currently metastasizing all throughout our nation? Or the act of turning a collective blind eye to the slave labor that's stocking Walmart's shelves for our benefit?
FYI, homosexuality has ALWAYS been around. It's not a recent invention; it's as much a part of humanity as marriage.
And as for abortion, I fail to see how preventing the formation of an unwanted child diminishes respect for life. If you're one of those nuts who insist that "abortion is murder", my reply is simple: murder is an act that can only be perpetrated on a being with a human brain. In the first 4-5 months of pregnancy, fetuses have brains smaller than a rat's, and far less structurally complex. Unless you believe in soul magic (which I certainly don't) and further believe that souls are magically coupled to bodies at conception or in early gestation, there is simply no argument (i.e. no non-religious argument) for claiming that fetuses actually qualify as human beings (i.e. a body that's actually inhabited by a human-like awareness and mind) until very late into pregnancy. I'm sorry, but the Catholic principle that a single cell with full complement of human DNA qualifies as a human being even absent implantation into the uterus, not only cheapens the definition of humanity beyond anything science could have done, but is just blindingly ridiculous on its face.
I don't condone late-term abortion (except in cases of medical emergency), but then neither does our society as a whole, and late-term abortions are exceedingly rare. Compared to the elective mass-murder we as a society are causing half-way around the world; compared to the mass-murder we as a society choose to ignore in Africa; compared to the mass-death caused by preventable disease epidemics toward eradication of which we dedicate almost no effort next to our expenditures for the apparatus of war; compared to the severe (and in some cases irreversible) damage we are wreaking on our planet (and our progeny's future), I'd say abortion and homosexuality are hardly of any importance whatsoever. I can only conclude that your perceptions have clearly been warped and perverted by right-wing brainwashing, which incidentally is a not-uncommon phenomenon among the staunchly religious of any nation or faith.
QUOTE
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner.
Thank you. My point exactly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
No law of social union may be based on sex. That would be discrimination. If social unions are allowed then thy must apply to anyone. For tax benefits or Social Security, a person must be allowed to name anyone as a social partner. |
Thank you. My point exactly.
This would be a great tax break for many people. It would eliminate most estate taxes even if Congress does not do so.
It would be a tax break only for the people who currently are not allowed to legally marry: that is, a tiny minority of the population. The vast majority of the population already enjoys massive tax breaks designed to benefit heterosexual couples.
Regardless, tax policy considerations are not a sound argument against equality of treatment under the law.
QUOTE
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God.
Again, you lack any understanding of my lack of belief in your god. Your opinions are subjective and based in your religion. They do not apply to me, or to anyone else who does not share your religious view. And they cannot be forced upon me or anyone else through legislative coersion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Again, you lack any understanding of Catholic teaching and of the intent of God. |
Again, you lack any understanding of my lack of belief in your god. Your opinions are subjective and based in your religion. They do not apply to me, or to anyone else who does not share your religious view. And they cannot be forced upon me or anyone else through legislative coersion.
Your atheism limits your ability to understand the nature of God’s creation and the laws and working of the universe.
Your religion blinds you to the wider world that lies outside of its limited scope. And by the way, blindly believing in fairy tales does not bring understanding of the universe. If anything, it is an excellent training in double-speak and double-think.
QUOTE
It is immoral to take you own life but it is of greater good to give your life for another.
And yet you argue that while this sentiment applies to monks, when one gay man (or woman) gives their life to another, it's a great "moral crime".
Pink Elephant;
You are in total denial of the facts of history and society. Not only are you trying to redefine marriage but also you are in denial of historical facts.
In your mind, the name changes reality. You have lost all concept of the definition of words. If changing the definition of words worked to solve problems then weave your magic and call all poor people rich and starving well fed.
Calling homosexual relations’ marriage is the same as calling a skunk flower.
In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved.[31] Though procreation is not the sole purpose, Jewish marriage is also expected to fulfill the commandment to have children.[32] The main focus centers around the relationship between the husband and wife. Kabbalistically, marriage is understood to mean that the husband and wife are merging together into a single soul. This is why a man is considered "incomplete" if he is not married, as his soul is only one part of a larger whole that remains to be unified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Marriage_and_religion
This is the oldest definition of marriage and goes back to Adam and Eve. There is no other reference older then this. The Catholic definition is the same only with greater understanding of marriage in relationship to God.
Any other definition is a perversion of the intent of marriage. Of course, homosexuals have no problem with perversion of many things.
Any person is free to enter into marriage under this definition. And our society has recognized the value and importance of relationships under this definition.
Stop trying to distort definitions, history, law and the constitution in support of a basic immoral relationship of homosexuality.
You have now posted enough to show the irrationality of your arguments. It would take a very strange person to accept you line of looogic.
I am sorry that you do not consider yourself anything but an animal. It is clear that I hold you in higher value then you hold yourself. It saddens me that you hold yourself to the level of an animal but it also angers me that you try to bring everyone else down to that level.
Keep your suffering to yourself and away from our great country of God. In God we trust.
All of your statements have become off center of rational. It is clear that you lack the desire or ability to engage in logical discussion.
You are in total denial of the facts of history and society. Not only are you trying to redefine marriage but also you are in denial of historical facts.
In your mind, the name changes reality. You have lost all concept of the definition of words. If changing the definition of words worked to solve problems then weave your magic and call all poor people rich and starving well fed.
Calling homosexual relations’ marriage is the same as calling a skunk flower.
In Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved.[31] Though procreation is not the sole purpose, Jewish marriage is also expected to fulfill the commandment to have children.[32] The main focus centers around the relationship between the husband and wife. Kabbalistically, marriage is understood to mean that the husband and wife are merging together into a single soul. This is why a man is considered "incomplete" if he is not married, as his soul is only one part of a larger whole that remains to be unified.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Marriage_and_religion
This is the oldest definition of marriage and goes back to Adam and Eve. There is no other reference older then this. The Catholic definition is the same only with greater understanding of marriage in relationship to God.
Any other definition is a perversion of the intent of marriage. Of course, homosexuals have no problem with perversion of many things.
Any person is free to enter into marriage under this definition. And our society has recognized the value and importance of relationships under this definition.
Stop trying to distort definitions, history, law and the constitution in support of a basic immoral relationship of homosexuality.
You have now posted enough to show the irrationality of your arguments. It would take a very strange person to accept you line of looogic.
I am sorry that you do not consider yourself anything but an animal. It is clear that I hold you in higher value then you hold yourself. It saddens me that you hold yourself to the level of an animal but it also angers me that you try to bring everyone else down to that level.
Keep your suffering to yourself and away from our great country of God. In God we trust.
All of your statements have become off center of rational. It is clear that you lack the desire or ability to engage in logical discussion.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 27 2007, 02:07 PM)
You are in total denial of the facts of history and society.
and you are in denial of your repressed homosexuality
and you are in denial of your repressed homosexuality
deabeat, I'd rather let this thread continue. No strictly religious debates. I do not wish to discuss religion further than this post. fyi I am Catholic, went to Catholic school, know a whole lot about religion in general, agree fully that NT takes precedence over OT, and fully support your right to your choice of faith.
N O M
I have shown you the facts of the nature of creation and you or anyone else has shown that any of the facts are wrong. I have shown the laws of creation, natural, law governs all things physical and moral. Nothing works against the intent and laws of God except man, who has been given freewill and the ability to create.
The gift of freewill, can alone, show the special nature of man and indicates the intent of God with respect to man. The intent of God is clear. Out of love, God desires to share with man his nature. This sharing must, by the requirements of love, be a free choice. Love is an act of free choice.
This choice extends to the creation of other humans in the image and likeness of God. Since man is a physical being, God has provided a physical means for this creation of love. The uniqueness of man demands a respect of life and the process of the creation of life.
When man acts in accord with creation and natural laws of creation by respecting life, the evils of the world diminish or disappear.
We have two choices. Understand and choose to act with the intent of God or deny God and act as less then animals. Animals act in accord with natural law of animals and those actions are the intended actions of God for animals. The actions of animals are a positive in nature. Man who has a higher purpose and acts like an animal can not and does not fulfill the purpose and intent of God and is therefore a negative influence in nature. When man does not act with love and a respect for life, the results are great evil for man. The choice against the intent of God results in killing, stealing, war, starvation, the denial of life and a loss of freedom.
Even if you do not have the gift of faith, it should be clear that it is in the interest of man to follow the intent of God as seen in natural law with the respect for life.
I put this on here for you in the hope that you can move beyond childish name calling.
I have shown you the facts of the nature of creation and you or anyone else has shown that any of the facts are wrong. I have shown the laws of creation, natural, law governs all things physical and moral. Nothing works against the intent and laws of God except man, who has been given freewill and the ability to create.
The gift of freewill, can alone, show the special nature of man and indicates the intent of God with respect to man. The intent of God is clear. Out of love, God desires to share with man his nature. This sharing must, by the requirements of love, be a free choice. Love is an act of free choice.
This choice extends to the creation of other humans in the image and likeness of God. Since man is a physical being, God has provided a physical means for this creation of love. The uniqueness of man demands a respect of life and the process of the creation of life.
When man acts in accord with creation and natural laws of creation by respecting life, the evils of the world diminish or disappear.
We have two choices. Understand and choose to act with the intent of God or deny God and act as less then animals. Animals act in accord with natural law of animals and those actions are the intended actions of God for animals. The actions of animals are a positive in nature. Man who has a higher purpose and acts like an animal can not and does not fulfill the purpose and intent of God and is therefore a negative influence in nature. When man does not act with love and a respect for life, the results are great evil for man. The choice against the intent of God results in killing, stealing, war, starvation, the denial of life and a loss of freedom.
Even if you do not have the gift of faith, it should be clear that it is in the interest of man to follow the intent of God as seen in natural law with the respect for life.
I put this on here for you in the hope that you can move beyond childish name calling.
So tlocity. Is that you who's been starting those fires around Greece? Aren't those little greek boys hot enough for you?
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 27 2007, 02:07 AM)
You are in total denial of the facts of history and society. Not only are you trying to redefine marriage but also you are in denial of historical facts.
Oh yeah? Let's see if YOU can acknowledge the following facts of history and society:
1) The vast majority of the world is not Catholic
2) About 45% of the world isn't even Christian, Jewish, or Muslim (i.e. doesn't derive its religion from any Abrahamic tradition): http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
3) There existed societies and religions all over the world, long before there was such a thing as Judaism
4) The Earth is NOT 6000 years old, but in fact is 4.5 billion years old, and the human species has existed in its modern form for at least 100,000 years
QUOTE
In Judaism, marriage is viewed...
Who cares what it's called in Judaism, other than people who actually believe in Judaism? I'll no sooner believe in Judaism's definition, than I will believe in a definition given (for example) by the Cherokee Indians. Your religion has no privileged place above other religions. And in a FREE society, no law can be derived or justified in terms of any given religion -- including yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In Judaism, marriage is viewed... |
Who cares what it's called in Judaism, other than people who actually believe in Judaism? I'll no sooner believe in Judaism's definition, than I will believe in a definition given (for example) by the Cherokee Indians. Your religion has no privileged place above other religions. And in a FREE society, no law can be derived or justified in terms of any given religion -- including yours.
This is the oldest definition of marriage and goes back to Adam and Eve. There is no other reference older then this. The Catholic definition is the same only with greater understanding of marriage in relationship to God.
There's no such thing as Adam and Eve; they are a myth. Humans weren't created; our species evolved as did all the other species on Earth. There was never any clear and abrupt transition from "non-human" to "human"; the modern humans are a result of, on average, a gradual morphing from preceding forms.
QUOTE
Stop trying to distort definitions, history, law and the constitution in support of a basic immoral relationship of homosexuality.
It is you who are distorting history, definitions, law, and the constitution. Our nation was NOT founded on the Bible. Indeed, many of our most prominent founding fathers were Deists and/or Freemasons, found the Bible abhorrent, and considered organized religion a source of evil.
The central tenet in the founding of our nation, is FREEDOM from any sort of oppression. You are trying to impose your Catholic doctrine upon the rest of us, who are non-Catholics, through the force of law. That is not freedom of religion; it is RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Of course, your church has a very long history of religious oppression, so I'm not at all surprised at its latest antics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Stop trying to distort definitions, history, law and the constitution in support of a basic immoral relationship of homosexuality. |
It is you who are distorting history, definitions, law, and the constitution. Our nation was NOT founded on the Bible. Indeed, many of our most prominent founding fathers were Deists and/or Freemasons, found the Bible abhorrent, and considered organized religion a source of evil.
The central tenet in the founding of our nation, is FREEDOM from any sort of oppression. You are trying to impose your Catholic doctrine upon the rest of us, who are non-Catholics, through the force of law. That is not freedom of religion; it is RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Of course, your church has a very long history of religious oppression, so I'm not at all surprised at its latest antics.
Keep your suffering to yourself and away from our great country of God. In God we trust.
Here's a few more facts of history and society for you:
FYI: "In God we trust" was added to U.S. currency in 1861, during the Civil War. It has no origin in the founding of our Republic. http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-shee...-we-trust.shtml
Another FYI: "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 during the anti-Communist hysteria; the original Pledge was invented in 1892 and, despite being authored by a Christian minister, contained no references to God. Neither has any origin in the founding of our Republic. http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
And one more: the "Creator" referenced in the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Judeo-Christian concept, but a Deist term. That's why the word "God" wasn't the one used; the word "Creator" in Deism means something quite different from the Christian notion of God. For more on Deism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
And finally: nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is God, or Christianity, or the Bible, mentioned -- NOT EVEN ONCE. This is deliberate! In the course of the Constitutional Convention some delegates wanted to ground the Constitution in Christianity and the Bible; this approach was soundly rejected by the Founding Fathers, who wanted to establish a nation based on Reason and Enlightenment.
What we have seen over the last couple of centuries, is a gradual encroachment of religious insitutions upon the very foundations of our originally free nation. Religious fundamentalists have worked very hard, and are still working hard, to negate and destroy the original ideas of America founded in egalitarianism and freedom of conscience, and replace them with a Theocracy where religious law is turned into civic law. Any true patriot would know this history, and would dedicate themselves to opposing these forces of destruction.
Well said.
Arthur
Arthur
I like this line of logic.
HERE!HERE! tlocity
You write beautifully and make perfect sense.
Most gay men are unhappy, shallow, sex obsessed individuals.AND they know it!!
You write beautifully and make perfect sense.
Most gay men are unhappy, shallow, sex obsessed individuals.AND they know it!!
QUOTE
Most gay men are unhappy, shallow, sex obsessed individuals.AND they know it!!
Some like to paint. tlocity, should we acid wash the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
soundhertz
This is not my statement. Why are you being dishonest about this quote?
This is not my statement. Why are you being dishonest about this quote?
Some like to paint. tlocity, should we acid wash the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
We all struggle with our failings but very few attribute our good works to our sins and our failings. Why are you trying to make this an upside down world. It is not my place to comment or even make known the personal sins of a person. In fact it is a sin to spread gossip about a person even if the gossip is true. It is even more of a sin to defame anyone.
It is however, my duty to keep your sins from becoming public policy. This duty is especially true when we are the government. In this country we all have a right and a duty to determine public policy. Any government has the obligation to enforce laws that are moral. Any immoral public policy has negative consequences for the society as a whole. A perfect example is the public policy of allowing and supporting divorce. We no have several generations without proper upbringing. These generations have no respect for life and no respect for anyone. They are without any moral education and the only guide lines they have, is if they like it or feels good.
You can tell by many of the posts on here that they are without any understanding of what morality is or the basis of morality in the design of nature. This is a lost generation and this country is and will suffer greatly for allowing this to take place. A sin denied is unforgivable. This is the problem with the public position of homosexuals. They proclaim evil good and good evil.
QUOTE
Most gay men are unhappy, shallow, sex obsessed individuals.AND they know it!!
This is not my statement. Why are you being dishonest about this quote?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most gay men are unhappy, shallow, sex obsessed individuals.AND they know it!! |
This is not my statement. Why are you being dishonest about this quote?
Some like to paint. tlocity, should we acid wash the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel?
We all struggle with our failings but very few attribute our good works to our sins and our failings. Why are you trying to make this an upside down world. It is not my place to comment or even make known the personal sins of a person. In fact it is a sin to spread gossip about a person even if the gossip is true. It is even more of a sin to defame anyone.
It is however, my duty to keep your sins from becoming public policy. This duty is especially true when we are the government. In this country we all have a right and a duty to determine public policy. Any government has the obligation to enforce laws that are moral. Any immoral public policy has negative consequences for the society as a whole. A perfect example is the public policy of allowing and supporting divorce. We no have several generations without proper upbringing. These generations have no respect for life and no respect for anyone. They are without any moral education and the only guide lines they have, is if they like it or feels good.
You can tell by many of the posts on here that they are without any understanding of what morality is or the basis of morality in the design of nature. This is a lost generation and this country is and will suffer greatly for allowing this to take place. A sin denied is unforgivable. This is the problem with the public position of homosexuals. They proclaim evil good and good evil.
The problem you are having tlocity is that you live in a country that believes in freedom while belonging to a religion that does not. The two are opposed to one another. The United States was founded in part to get away from religious oppression, not support it.
That is a your duty to your religion. As an American, your duty is to freedom and equality. As your good book says "a man cannot serve two masters".
QUOTE
It is however, my duty to keep your sins from becoming public policy. This duty is especially true......
That is a your duty to your religion. As an American, your duty is to freedom and equality. As your good book says "a man cannot serve two masters".
QUOTE (Guest_ian+Aug 29 2007, 06:54 AM)
HERE!HERE! tlocity
You write beautifully and make perfect sense.
Hey tlocity, looks like you got a date
You write beautifully and make perfect sense.
Hey tlocity, looks like you got a date
....... if you're lucky it could end like this:
Think for a moment, would you not defend your lovers? The ancient Greeks were blunt, and remarkably truthfully. So we have to deal with it.Shall I continue??
Human biology is desired to to be as accurate as possible in regards to human behavior. Usually its science fiction. but not always.
I dare say that this principle would not apply very well today. The notion of love has gone through some drastic changes over the vast millenia. For instance, not even the mothers of children want to see their sons go into war. Can you imagine the shear objections between lovers today, gay or not? Can you imagine living without your lover, knowing that you where by their side when they where needlessly killed?
NeoNo.1
NeoNo.1
Rusty Shackleford
See the above post to Rusty Shackleford. It points out the problem with people that lack respect and the value of the process of life. Homosexuals are partially dysfunctional as a group. Their behavior and obsession with acceptance is beyond normal. Their disregard for the rights of others is a disturbance to society.
People have married under the definition of marriage that has been established for centuries. It is totally inconsiderate to demand that the definition of marriage be changed to justify a perversion of marriage. Any change in the definition of marriage is a change to all the contracts of current marriages. I have a right not to have my contract with the government. In fact, there is a law that prohibits changes with agreements made with the government without the agreement of both parties.
If homosexual activity were kept private, there would not be this debate or these posts. If you don’t push I don’t shove.
QUOTE
The problem you are having tlocity is that you live in a country that believes in freedom while belonging to a religion that does not. The two are opposed to one another. The United States was founded in part to get away from religious oppression, not support it.
You have everything backwards. I have no problem. I live in a country that is founded on al rights coming from the Creator. The government is established to guarantee those rights. For your information, the Creator is God. For your education, the United States was not founded to get away from religious oppression. There is nothing in any of the founding documents that are against any religious practice. In fact at the founding of the United States many states were religious based.
The Constitution, freedom of religion was stated so that the federal government could not make any laws against the religious founding of the different states.
Since this country is founded on the freedom given to us by God, there are no questions of two masters. We are a country that acknowledges just one master, God. Our rights come from God to the people and power is given from the people to the government. The government has no power except that which the people of God give it.
This is why we are blessed by God, when we are called upon to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar our Caesar is God and we owe all things to God.
From the nature of Creation, we know that man is given freewill, even freewill to do wrong. From this, it is clear that God wishes man to freely make a choice for or against Him. The freedom that we have reflects this freedom of freewill to chose against God. That freedom does not extend to requiring anyone to accept or recognize that choice in law or society.
Freedom is not absolute. You are free to do the moral and right things. No one has the freedom to do evil through the power of the government.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The problem you are having tlocity is that you live in a country that believes in freedom while belonging to a religion that does not. The two are opposed to one another. The United States was founded in part to get away from religious oppression, not support it. It is however, my duty to keep your sins from becoming public policy. This duty is especially true...... That is a your duty to your religion. As an American, your duty is to freedom and equality. As your good book says "a man cannot serve two masters". |
You have everything backwards. I have no problem. I live in a country that is founded on al rights coming from the Creator. The government is established to guarantee those rights. For your information, the Creator is God. For your education, the United States was not founded to get away from religious oppression. There is nothing in any of the founding documents that are against any religious practice. In fact at the founding of the United States many states were religious based.
The Constitution, freedom of religion was stated so that the federal government could not make any laws against the religious founding of the different states.
Since this country is founded on the freedom given to us by God, there are no questions of two masters. We are a country that acknowledges just one master, God. Our rights come from God to the people and power is given from the people to the government. The government has no power except that which the people of God give it.
This is why we are blessed by God, when we are called upon to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar our Caesar is God and we owe all things to God.
From the nature of Creation, we know that man is given freewill, even freewill to do wrong. From this, it is clear that God wishes man to freely make a choice for or against Him. The freedom that we have reflects this freedom of freewill to chose against God. That freedom does not extend to requiring anyone to accept or recognize that choice in law or society.
Freedom is not absolute. You are free to do the moral and right things. No one has the freedom to do evil through the power of the government.
Oh but you do have a problem, one that you may not see or acknowledge. Knowingly or not, you are still wanting to force your religion on other people. Your religion (at least your brand/interpretation) is not compatible with freedom. You pretend at freedom, but truly, you would make everyone believe and live as you do if you could. You want to take away the freewill to choose or reject God that you claim God has given us.
This brings me to another point. I can't see where God has given man his freedom. The freedom enjoyed in this country was paid for in the blood of men, God never fired a shot. It is men who free themselves from dictators, kings and other tyrannies. You will also note that nearly every king, emperor, etc. throughout history claimed to be divinely ordained.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."- The First Amendment
Can you give a non-religious reason why homosexuals should not marry?
This brings me to another point. I can't see where God has given man his freedom. The freedom enjoyed in this country was paid for in the blood of men, God never fired a shot. It is men who free themselves from dictators, kings and other tyrannies. You will also note that nearly every king, emperor, etc. throughout history claimed to be divinely ordained.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."- The First Amendment
Can you give a non-religious reason why homosexuals should not marry?
tlocity is mostly worried that if homosexuality was more widely accepted, he would find it harder to pick up boys by lurking in public loos
Ohhh... that's harsh NOM. How long did it take you think that one up?
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 29 2007, 02:21 PM)
It is however, my duty to keep your sins from becoming public policy.
Wrong! It is your duty to keep yourself from sinning. Anyone else's "sins" are none of your business.
Wrong! It is your duty to keep yourself from sinning. Anyone else's "sins" are none of your business.
Rusty Shackleford
All societies of man are based on man being more then just animals. We recognize that human life has a basic value beyond animal. For man to exist each and every person must have respect for human life. This respect translates into our interactions between people.
We do not lie, cheat, steal, or kill because of our basic respect for life. We engrave that respect into our laws and enforce that respect.
It is inconsistent to claim respect for life, laws, and society and deny the respect and value of the process of life. Just as we recognize the value of the process of the creation of art, we must recognize the value of the creation of life.
Homosexuality is like cutting off the hands of the artist. Some may claim that the hands of creation are not the art, just as some say that the process of life is not life.
It is sad enough that a person does not respect the process of life and the extension of that to life itself, on a personal level. The contradiction of proclaiming a respect for life and not the process produces a conflict within a person. That conflict even on a personal level results is less than a full functioning personality.
That conflict leads to a need of justification. The need for justification results in the homosexual’s need to extend the lack of total respect for life into social action. It is a need for approval. There is never enough approval for justification of actions against the basis of nature.
The only result for a lack of respect for the process of life is a devaluation of the value of all life.
Homosexuality in social policy also sets up a battle between government and religion. This battle will never be resolved and will be a major issue in all politics, the same as abortion.
Marriage is a proclamation of the process of life and the recognition by the government is because it is good for society.
Homosexuality is a statement against the value of the process of life and has no social value.
There is much more but I think this should be enough for a start.
QUOTE
Can you give a non-religious reason why homosexuals should not marry?
All societies of man are based on man being more then just animals. We recognize that human life has a basic value beyond animal. For man to exist each and every person must have respect for human life. This respect translates into our interactions between people.
We do not lie, cheat, steal, or kill because of our basic respect for life. We engrave that respect into our laws and enforce that respect.
It is inconsistent to claim respect for life, laws, and society and deny the respect and value of the process of life. Just as we recognize the value of the process of the creation of art, we must recognize the value of the creation of life.
Homosexuality is like cutting off the hands of the artist. Some may claim that the hands of creation are not the art, just as some say that the process of life is not life.
It is sad enough that a person does not respect the process of life and the extension of that to life itself, on a personal level. The contradiction of proclaiming a respect for life and not the process produces a conflict within a person. That conflict even on a personal level results is less than a full functioning personality.
That conflict leads to a need of justification. The need for justification results in the homosexual’s need to extend the lack of total respect for life into social action. It is a need for approval. There is never enough approval for justification of actions against the basis of nature.
The only result for a lack of respect for the process of life is a devaluation of the value of all life.
Homosexuality in social policy also sets up a battle between government and religion. This battle will never be resolved and will be a major issue in all politics, the same as abortion.
Marriage is a proclamation of the process of life and the recognition by the government is because it is good for society.
Homosexuality is a statement against the value of the process of life and has no social value.
There is much more but I think this should be enough for a start.
gmilam
All sins are the business of society and governments. It is a sin to steal, cheat, lie, kill… It is a sin not to respect each other. It is a sin not to respect life and the process of life. It is a sin to endanger other on the highways.
I can not think of a law that is not based on a sin.
QUOTE
Wrong! It is your duty to keep yourself from sinning. Anyone else's "sins" are none of your business.
All sins are the business of society and governments. It is a sin to steal, cheat, lie, kill… It is a sin not to respect each other. It is a sin not to respect life and the process of life. It is a sin to endanger other on the highways.
I can not think of a law that is not based on a sin.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 31 2007, 01:05 AM)
gmilam
All sins are the business of society and governments. It is a sin to steal, cheat, lie, kill… It is a sin not to respect each other. It is a sin not to respect life and the process of life. It is a sin to endanger other on the highways.
I can not think of a law that is not based on a sin.
Nobody's lying, stealing, cheating or killing. Nobody is harming anyone in any way shape or form.
Once again, how is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home of any concern to anyone else?
All sins are the business of society and governments. It is a sin to steal, cheat, lie, kill… It is a sin not to respect each other. It is a sin not to respect life and the process of life. It is a sin to endanger other on the highways.
I can not think of a law that is not based on a sin.
Nobody's lying, stealing, cheating or killing. Nobody is harming anyone in any way shape or form.
Once again, how is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home of any concern to anyone else?
QUOTE
Once again, how is what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home of any concern to anyone else?
See the above post to Rusty Shackleford. It points out the problem with people that lack respect and the value of the process of life. Homosexuals are partially dysfunctional as a group. Their behavior and obsession with acceptance is beyond normal. Their disregard for the rights of others is a disturbance to society.
People have married under the definition of marriage that has been established for centuries. It is totally inconsiderate to demand that the definition of marriage be changed to justify a perversion of marriage. Any change in the definition of marriage is a change to all the contracts of current marriages. I have a right not to have my contract with the government. In fact, there is a law that prohibits changes with agreements made with the government without the agreement of both parties.
If homosexual activity were kept private, there would not be this debate or these posts. If you don’t push I don’t shove.
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 31 2007, 01:59 AM)
All societies of man are based on man being more then just animals. We recognize that human life has a basic value beyond animal. For man to exist each and every person must have respect for human life. This respect translates into our interactions between people.
We do not lie, cheat, steal, or kill because of our basic respect for life. We engrave that respect into our laws and enforce that respect.
It is inconsistent to claim respect for life, laws, and society and deny the respect and value of the process of life. Just as we recognize the value of the process of the creation of art, we must recognize the value of the creation of life.
Homosexuality is like cutting off the hands of the artist. Some may claim that the hands of creation are not the art, just as some say that the process of life is not life.
It is sad enough that a person does not respect the process of life and the extension of that to life itself, on a personal level. The contradiction of proclaiming a respect for life and not the process produces a conflict within a person. That conflict even on a personal level results is less than a full functioning personality.
That conflict leads to a need of justification. The need for justification results in the homosexual’s need to extend the lack of total respect for life into social action. It is a need for approval. There is never enough approval for justification of actions against the basis of nature.
The only result for a lack of respect for the process of life is a devaluation of the value of all life.
Homosexuality in social policy also sets up a battle between government and religion. This battle will never be resolved and will be a major issue in all politics, the same as abortion.
Marriage is a proclamation of the process of life and the recognition by the government is because it is good for society.
Homosexuality is a statement against the value of the process of life and has no social value.
There is much more but I think this should be enough for a start.
It appears that your "PROCESS OF LIFE" really equates to REPRODUCTION.
So a couple that gets married but chooses not to have children apparently also does not "respect the process of life"?
Arthur
We do not lie, cheat, steal, or kill because of our basic respect for life. We engrave that respect into our laws and enforce that respect.
It is inconsistent to claim respect for life, laws, and society and deny the respect and value of the process of life. Just as we recognize the value of the process of the creation of art, we must recognize the value of the creation of life.
Homosexuality is like cutting off the hands of the artist. Some may claim that the hands of creation are not the art, just as some say that the process of life is not life.
It is sad enough that a person does not respect the process of life and the extension of that to life itself, on a personal level. The contradiction of proclaiming a respect for life and not the process produces a conflict within a person. That conflict even on a personal level results is less than a full functioning personality.
That conflict leads to a need of justification. The need for justification results in the homosexual’s need to extend the lack of total respect for life into social action. It is a need for approval. There is never enough approval for justification of actions against the basis of nature.
The only result for a lack of respect for the process of life is a devaluation of the value of all life.
Homosexuality in social policy also sets up a battle between government and religion. This battle will never be resolved and will be a major issue in all politics, the same as abortion.
Marriage is a proclamation of the process of life and the recognition by the government is because it is good for society.
Homosexuality is a statement against the value of the process of life and has no social value.
There is much more but I think this should be enough for a start.
It appears that your "PROCESS OF LIFE" really equates to REPRODUCTION.
So a couple that gets married but chooses not to have children apparently also does not "respect the process of life"?
Arthur
QUOTE (tlocity+Aug 31 2007, 02:39 AM)
Homosexuals are partially dysfunctional as a group.
Who's not?
Wow, they want to be accepted - what a horrible crime!
Wow, they want to be accepted - what a horrible crime!
Their disregard for the rights of others is a disturbance to society.
Disregard for the rights of others? Sorry, the only disregard of rights I see is coming from you.
I believe the article that kicked this entire thread off shows that civil unions also have a history that goes back centuries.
I believe the article that kicked this entire thread off shows that civil unions also have a history that goes back centuries.
It is totally inconsiderate to demand that the definition of marriage be changed to justify a perversion of marriage. Any change in the definition of marriage is a change to all the contracts of current marriages.
Pure unadulterated BS.
But you'll make sweeping pronouncements about a group of people who need your particular commentary like a hole in the head already, and spread your perspective on this group of people as if they were a single entity; you having no personal sensitivity or empathy to a one, their struggles, achievements, frustrations, hopes, resignations, altruism - their life. You don't see your bigotry in it's frame of righteousness any more than you see your own speciousness and your disingenuous posts as I have previously pointed out, and as others are continuing to do with great clarity. You think missionary, but you are blind to what you're really doing. You are in a perfect position to utilize the Golden Rule. It's a special thing when you can do that.
I only speak out against actions that are wrong, immoral, evil, disruptive, and a danger to freedom. No one should judge the eternal disposition of anyone, that is for God alone.
All are required to judge actions and proposed course of action of persons, groups of people, governments… We are intended and required to make judgements and govern our lives in accordance with that judgement. That judgement must be made in good conscience with an open mind to accept arguments.
Of course, I have personal sensitivity and empathy for anyone in their position. I have presented arguments against homosexuality as a practice and life style and given reasons why anyone in their position should change their actions. I have pointed out how homosexuality practice is detrimental to them and society as a whole. I have not seen one rebuttal to any of my arguments. To enable a behavior that is detrimental to a person’s eternal life or happiness is not a kindness. By the Golden rule it is required, that I do for you and all others what is would want done for me. I have tried to give the information needed to help make a moral judgement.
It is also required that I try to protect our society from any evil or anything that is or would be detrimental to society as a whole. This I have also tried to do.
The spin of and about homosexuality is a lie. The recognition of the homosexual life style in society is not a right. Homosexual action is always a choice.
I do not see my role as a missionary. You can never reach a person who claims that wrong is right. The homosexual is even blind when it comes to Aids. If the danger of death will not cause a person to reevaluate their behavior, words will never have an effect. I only stand as a rear guard for truth.
Who's not?
QUOTE
Their behavior and obsession with acceptance is beyond normal.
Wow, they want to be accepted - what a horrible crime!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Their behavior and obsession with acceptance is beyond normal. |
Wow, they want to be accepted - what a horrible crime!
Their disregard for the rights of others is a disturbance to society.
Disregard for the rights of others? Sorry, the only disregard of rights I see is coming from you.
QUOTE
People have married under the definition of marriage that has been established for centuries.
I believe the article that kicked this entire thread off shows that civil unions also have a history that goes back centuries.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| People have married under the definition of marriage that has been established for centuries. |
I believe the article that kicked this entire thread off shows that civil unions also have a history that goes back centuries.
It is totally inconsiderate to demand that the definition of marriage be changed to justify a perversion of marriage. Any change in the definition of marriage is a change to all the contracts of current marriages.
Pure unadulterated BS.
QUOTE
It is not my place to comment or even make known the personal sins of a person. In fact it is a sin to spread gossip about a person even if the gossip is true. It is even more of a sin to defame anyone.
But you'll make sweeping pronouncements about a group of people who need your particular commentary like a hole in the head already, and spread your perspective on this group of people as if they were a single entity; you having no personal sensitivity or empathy to a one, their struggles, achievements, frustrations, hopes, resignations, altruism - their life. You don't see your bigotry in it's frame of righteousness any more than you see your own speciousness and your disingenuous posts as I have previously pointed out, and as others are continuing to do with great clarity. You think missionary, but you are blind to what you're really doing. You are in a perfect position to utilize the Golden Rule. It's a special thing when you can do that.
QUOTE
But you'll make sweeping pronouncements about a group of people who need your particular commentary like a hole in the head already, and spread your perspective on this group of people as if they were a single entity; you having no personal sensitivity or empathy to a one, their struggles, achievements, frustrations, hopes, resignations, altruism - their life. You don't see your bigotry in it's frame of righteousness any more than you see your own speciousness and your disingenuous posts as I have previously pointed out, and as others are continuing to do with great clarity. You think missionary, but you are blind to what you're really doing. You are in a perfect position to utilize the Golden Rule. It's a special thing when you can do that.
I only speak out against actions that are wrong, immoral, evil, disruptive, and a danger to freedom. No one should judge the eternal disposition of anyone, that is for God alone.
All are required to judge actions and proposed course of action of persons, groups of people, governments… We are intended and required to make judgements and govern our lives in accordance with that judgement. That judgement must be made in good conscience with an open mind to accept arguments.
Of course, I have personal sensitivity and empathy for anyone in their position. I have presented arguments against homosexuality as a practice and life style and given reasons why anyone in their position should change their actions. I have pointed out how homosexuality practice is detrimental to them and society as a whole. I have not seen one rebuttal to any of my arguments. To enable a behavior that is detrimental to a person’s eternal life or happiness is not a kindness. By the Golden rule it is required, that I do for you and all others what is would want done for me. I have tried to give the information needed to help make a moral judgement.
It is also required that I try to protect our society from any evil or anything that is or would be detrimental to society as a whole. This I have also tried to do.
The spin of and about homosexuality is a lie. The recognition of the homosexual life style in society is not a right. Homosexual action is always a choice.
I do not see my role as a missionary. You can never reach a person who claims that wrong is right. The homosexual is even blind when it comes to Aids. If the danger of death will not cause a person to reevaluate their behavior, words will never have an effect. I only stand as a rear guard for truth.
gmilam
What right that I disregard are you talking about? What is the source for this right and how come it just came into being?
What right that I disregard are you talking about? What is the source for this right and how come it just came into being?
I believe the article that kicked this entire thread off shows that civil unions also have a history that goes back centuries.
Civil Unions or partnerships can have no basis in sex. If you wish to extend more tax breaks to all I have no major objections. Marriage between a man and a woman should still have more benefits than any other type of partnerships because of the benefit it provides to society. This is the same as giving benefits to any business that is beneficial to the nation as a whole. This is why we have tax breaks for farmers or energy production. The homosexuality has no benefit to society or the nation. In fact, as I have shown homosexuality is a negative for society. It may be a good idea to tax those things that are a negative to society.
QUOTE
Disregard for the rights of others? Sorry, the only disregard of rights I see is coming from you.
What right that I disregard are you talking about? What is the source for this right and how come it just came into being?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Disregard for the rights of others? Sorry, the only disregard of rights I see is coming from you. |
What right that I disregard are you talking about? What is the source for this right and how come it just came into being?
I believe the article that kicked this entire thread off shows that civil unions also have a history that goes back centuries.
Civil Unions or partnerships can have no basis in sex. If you wish to extend more tax breaks to all I have no major objections. Marriage between a man and a woman should still have more benefits than any other type of partnerships because of the benefit it provides to society. This is the same as giving benefits to any business that is beneficial to the nation as a whole. This is why we have tax breaks for farmers or energy production. The homosexuality has no benefit to society or the nation. In fact, as I have shown homosexuality is a negative for society. It may be a good idea to tax those things that are a negative to society.
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 1 2007, 02:08 AM)
The homosexual is even blind when it comes to Aids. If the danger of death will not cause a person to reevaluate their behavior, words will never have an effect.
A monogamous homosexual couple has no risk of AIDs.
Arthur
A monogamous homosexual couple has no risk of AIDs.
Arthur
Besides... That is a terrible myth...
More straight people have aids than gay people... Get your bloody facts straight!
More straight people have aids than gay people... Get your bloody facts straight!
[QUOTE]I only speak out against actions that are wrong, immoral, evil, disruptive, and a danger to freedom.[/QUOTE]
And in this case, the actions you are speaking out against is a gay lifestyle, which YOU are saying is wrong, immoral, evil, disruptive, and a danger to freedom.
[QUOTE] No one should judge the eternal disposition of anyone, that is for God alone.
[/QUOTE]
Then you must be playing God since you have already condemned an entire group of people.
[QUOTE]All are required to judge actions and proposed course of action of persons, groups of people, governments… We are intended and required to make judgements and govern our lives in accordance with that judgement. That judgement must be made in good conscience with an open mind to accept arguments.
[/QUOTE]
You're unbelievable. You are judging actions that cannot possibly have any repercussion on you, except through your own paranoia. You still think aids is a gay disease. You think that a gay couple living together is harming the country. Unless YOU are an appointed judge in the U.S., YOU are not required to judge anything or anyone except as to how it literally threatens you. And a judge is not expected to use religion as a fulcrum for their decisions, only RULE OF LAW. This is not a theocracy sir, in accordance with the wishes of the founders. If you want to live in a theocracy, there's a few in the ME you can emigrate to.
"That judgement must be made in good conscience with an open mind to accept arguments"
You've been given every opportunity to accept any of the many arguments presented on the last five pages of this thread. Your mind is anything but a parachute.
[QUOTE]I have not seen one rebuttal to any of my arguments.[/QUOTE]
Talk about a telling statement. And why do you think that is?
[QUOTE] The recognition of the homosexual life style in society is not a right. Homosexual action is always a choice. [QUOTE]
If anyone wishes to recognize homosexual lifestyle in society they certainly DO have a right to. And choice? Between what?
[QUOTE]You can never reach a person who claims that wrong is right.[/QUOTE]
But we are trying.
[QUOTE] I only stand as a rear guard for truth.
[/QUOTE]
Whose? This is not a theocracy.
[QUOTE]It is also required that I try to protect our society from any evil or anything that is or would be detrimental to society as a whole[/QUOTE]
And I wonder what that list would look like.
tlocity, if you had the power of a dictator, what would you do with the gays?
If you had the power of your God, what would you do with the gays?
And in this case, the actions you are speaking out against is a gay lifestyle, which YOU are saying is wrong, immoral, evil, disruptive, and a danger to freedom.
[QUOTE] No one should judge the eternal disposition of anyone, that is for God alone.
[/QUOTE]
Then you must be playing God since you have already condemned an entire group of people.
[QUOTE]All are required to judge actions and proposed course of action of persons, groups of people, governments… We are intended and required to make judgements and govern our lives in accordance with that judgement. That judgement must be made in good conscience with an open mind to accept arguments.
[/QUOTE]
You're unbelievable. You are judging actions that cannot possibly have any repercussion on you, except through your own paranoia. You still think aids is a gay disease. You think that a gay couple living together is harming the country. Unless YOU are an appointed judge in the U.S., YOU are not required to judge anything or anyone except as to how it literally threatens you. And a judge is not expected to use religion as a fulcrum for their decisions, only RULE OF LAW. This is not a theocracy sir, in accordance with the wishes of the founders. If you want to live in a theocracy, there's a few in the ME you can emigrate to.
"That judgement must be made in good conscience with an open mind to accept arguments"
You've been given every opportunity to accept any of the many arguments presented on the last five pages of this thread. Your mind is anything but a parachute.
[QUOTE]I have not seen one rebuttal to any of my arguments.[/QUOTE]
Talk about a telling statement. And why do you think that is?
[QUOTE] The recognition of the homosexual life style in society is not a right. Homosexual action is always a choice. [QUOTE]
If anyone wishes to recognize homosexual lifestyle in society they certainly DO have a right to. And choice? Between what?
[QUOTE]You can never reach a person who claims that wrong is right.[/QUOTE]
But we are trying.
[QUOTE] I only stand as a rear guard for truth.
[/QUOTE]
Whose? This is not a theocracy.
[QUOTE]It is also required that I try to protect our society from any evil or anything that is or would be detrimental to society as a whole[/QUOTE]
And I wonder what that list would look like.
tlocity, if you had the power of a dictator, what would you do with the gays?
If you had the power of your God, what would you do with the gays?
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Sep 1 2007, 02:03 PM)
Besides... That is a terrible myth...
More straight people have aids than gay people... Get your bloody facts straight!
that is nowhere near as good as the loo joke....
I don't care what anyone says...
More straight people have aids than gay people... Get your bloody facts straight!
that is nowhere near as good as the loo joke....
I don't care what anyone says...
It is a fact... It's hardly a joke...
Homosexuals are the vector for Aids. It is true that through bisexual relations and drug use Aids has spread to the larger population. This would not have happen if those with Aids would have been controlled.
Actually, people eating "bush meat", or the meat of great apes slaughtered for food in Africa, were the first people to contract HIV disease. Go use the Internet in one of its original uses: the discovery of information or knowledge, rather than generating ignorant, bigoted postings.
Guest_James; That is just one of the stories.
The other is that they had sex with the animals. Either way it was spread by homosexual behavior first and then to the general population as I outlined. The history is quite clear.
The other is that they had sex with the animals. Either way it was spread by homosexual behavior first and then to the general population as I outlined. The history is quite clear.
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 1 2007, 04:40 PM)
Homosexuals are the vector for Aids. It is true that through bisexual relations and drug use Aids has spread to the larger population. This would not have happen if those with Aids would have been controlled.
No, unproctected sex is a Vector for AIDS.
Doesn't matter what the respective sexes are.
This was noted as early as 1983.
MMWR Weekly (1983) 'Epidemiologic notes and reports immunodeficiency among female sexual partners of males with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) - New York' (1983), January 7, 31(52);697-8
And it was also transmitted to their young by suckling:
Oleske J., et al. (1983), 'Immune Deficiency Syndrome in children', Journal of American Medicine Association, 249 (17), 2345-2349
MMWR Weekly (1982) 'Unexplained Immunodeficiency and Opportunistic Infections in Infants- New York, New Jersey, California', December 17,31 (49); 665-667
Of course it had entered the blood supply quite early on.
MMWR Weekly (1982) 'Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Possible Transfusion-Associated Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS- California', December 10, 31 (48); 652-4
hitting hemophiliacs particularly hard.
MMWR Weekly (1982) 'Epidemiologic notes and Reports Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia among persons with hemophilia A', July 16, 31(27); 365-7,).
Note that all of the above had occurred BEFORE the cause of AIDS had been isolated or a TEST for the presence of the HIV virus had been found.
'Pear R. (1985), 'AIDS blood test to be available in 2 to 6 weeks', the New York Times, March 3
Arthur
No, unproctected sex is a Vector for AIDS.
Doesn't matter what the respective sexes are.
This was noted as early as 1983.
MMWR Weekly (1983) 'Epidemiologic notes and reports immunodeficiency among female sexual partners of males with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) - New York' (1983), January 7, 31(52);697-8
And it was also transmitted to their young by suckling:
Oleske J., et al. (1983), 'Immune Deficiency Syndrome in children', Journal of American Medicine Association, 249 (17), 2345-2349
MMWR Weekly (1982) 'Unexplained Immunodeficiency and Opportunistic Infections in Infants- New York, New Jersey, California', December 17,31 (49); 665-667
Of course it had entered the blood supply quite early on.
MMWR Weekly (1982) 'Epidemiologic Notes and Reports Possible Transfusion-Associated Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS- California', December 10, 31 (48); 652-4
hitting hemophiliacs particularly hard.
MMWR Weekly (1982) 'Epidemiologic notes and Reports Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia among persons with hemophilia A', July 16, 31(27); 365-7,).
Note that all of the above had occurred BEFORE the cause of AIDS had been isolated or a TEST for the presence of the HIV virus had been found.
'Pear R. (1985), 'AIDS blood test to be available in 2 to 6 weeks', the New York Times, March 3
Arthur
All you need do is follow the deaths caused by Aids and note the makeup of the affected group.
Edit.
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 1 2007, 10:03 PM)
All you need do is follow the deaths caused by Aids and note the makeup of the affected group.
Yeah,
And a SUBSTANTIAL number are Hetrosexual.
AIDS cases 2005
Male-to-male sexual contact Males 18,296
Injection Drug Use Males 3,441 Females 1,851
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use Males 1,324
Heterosexual contact Males 4,255 Females 7,734
Other Males 139 Females. 124
Arthur
Yeah,
And a SUBSTANTIAL number are Hetrosexual.
AIDS cases 2005
Male-to-male sexual contact Males 18,296
Injection Drug Use Males 3,441 Females 1,851
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use Males 1,324
Heterosexual contact Males 4,255 Females 7,734
Other Males 139 Females. 124
Arthur
tlocity
These bigoted, narrow-minded views of yours hardly brings the best out in you. It seems as though you have a personal displacement against homosexuals... Whats wrong?
And before you go off making more claims concerning homosexuals, you really need to learn some more facts...
You said, ''Either way, the Aids virus was caused by homosexual acts...''
That is not necesserally true at all. You see, in the chimp and ape family, they are notorious for raping there young and females... This is just a fact of life, and there was a documented case when a young female girl of a local tribe was nearly raped by one of these chimps, or green monkeys as i beleive they where called, so it may not have been a human that caused this, but rather the other way round.
Also, you say that homosexuals are the vessel for aids... WHAT A LOAD OF BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, i'll say this... more straight people carry aids than gay people today. So who are the real vessels now?
NeoNo.1
These bigoted, narrow-minded views of yours hardly brings the best out in you. It seems as though you have a personal displacement against homosexuals... Whats wrong?
And before you go off making more claims concerning homosexuals, you really need to learn some more facts...
You said, ''Either way, the Aids virus was caused by homosexual acts...''
That is not necesserally true at all. You see, in the chimp and ape family, they are notorious for raping there young and females... This is just a fact of life, and there was a documented case when a young female girl of a local tribe was nearly raped by one of these chimps, or green monkeys as i beleive they where called, so it may not have been a human that caused this, but rather the other way round.
Also, you say that homosexuals are the vessel for aids... WHAT A LOAD OF BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Again, i'll say this... more straight people carry aids than gay people today. So who are the real vessels now?
NeoNo.1
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 2 2007, 03:12 AM)
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5021a2.htm#tab1
Do you even bother to read your sources?
Arthur
Do you even bother to read your sources?
QUOTE
As of December 31, 2000, 774,467 persons had been reported with AIDS in the United States; 448,060 of these had died; 3542 persons had unknown vital status. The number of persons living with AIDS (322,865) is the highest ever reported. Of these, 79% were men, 61% were black or Hispanic, and 41% were infected through male-to-male sex.
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.